← 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

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

ITA 579/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

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

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

ITA 578/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

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

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

ITA 577/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Rec Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 320/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. 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 SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Rec Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY

ITA 319/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

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

clear that for the purpose of the circular, what should be the guiding factor was whether the proceedings or other particulars before the Income-tax officer at the stage of original assessment disclosed any grounds for relief under section 2(5) (a) (iii ) of the Finance ... question in the light of this circular of 1955 had not been examined by the Tribunal. What applies to the obligation of the Income-tax Officer would also apply to all officers of the department concerned with the execution of 21 ITA Nos.319 & 320/Del/2025 ITA Nos.577& 578/Del/2025 ITA Nos.609& 579/Del/2025

Dinesh Enterprises, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(8), Salem

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

ITA 165/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus : "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

Mom Foundation, Vellore vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chenna

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

ITA 3468/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.N. Sanjit Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144

order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus : "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

Saratha, Virudhunagar vs. ITO Ward 3, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 3436/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms.D. Geetha, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)

order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus : "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." Mrs. Saratha :: 4 :: 2. That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first ... 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

Paneerselvam Subramaniam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3068/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Aravind, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 249(4)Section 294(4)

order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus : "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

C-2497 Patchur Paccs, Tirupattur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 2818/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.G. Goudhaman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 69

order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus : "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

Abdul Shukoor Sakira Banu, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1080/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 144Section 148

order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus : "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

Sri Guru Vappathina Swamy Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Opp Oppathina Sangha Matt, Hosadurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Chitradurga

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed holding that Assessee is entitled to deduction u/s

ITA 2483/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2022-23 M/S. Sri Guru Vappathina Swamy Pathin Sahakara Sangha The Income Tax Officer, Niyamitha, Ward-1, Opp Oppathina Sangha Matt, Vs. Chitradurga. Hosadurga – 577 501. Pan: Aaaas3998Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Shreesha, CA
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

nationalized banks. Therefore, the Assessee claimed that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. Income-tax officer Word-V, Tumkur [2015] 55 taxmann.com 447 (Karnataka)/[2015] 230 Taxman 309 (Karnataka)[28-10-2014] specifically covers the issue in favour of the Page ... decision of the Page 4 of 6 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. Income-tax officer Word-V, Tumkur [2015] 55 taxmann.com 447 (Karnataka)/[2015] 230 Taxman 309 (Karnataka)[28-10-2014] as well as the decision in case of Totgars

Bhasin Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle -(4)2, New Delhi

ITA 5544/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 234ASection 251(1)(c)Section 251(2)Section 68

from three parties from, Nepal, Khara- Bahadur Nepali, Jiwanmal Santockchand and Sohanlal Subhkaran respectively. The Income-tax Officer added these amounts to the total income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had inflated the purchase of raw jute. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied that these ... loans were genuine loans but considered that they represented secret profits made by the assessee by inflating the purchase of raw jute. The Income-tax Officer noted that die assessee had withdrawn at Calcutta on March 31, 1952, a sum of Rs. 5,30,000 from a Calcutta bank

Bhasin Motors Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

ITA 1699/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 234ASection 251(1)(c)Section 251(2)Section 68

from three parties from, Nepal, Khara- Bahadur Nepali, Jiwanmal Santockchand and Sohanlal Subhkaran respectively. The Income-tax Officer added these amounts to the total income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had inflated the purchase of raw jute. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied that these ... loans were genuine loans but considered that they represented secret profits made by the assessee by inflating the purchase of raw jute. The Income-tax Officer noted that die assessee had withdrawn at Calcutta on March 31, 1952, a sum of Rs. 5,30,000 from a Calcutta bank

Bhilai Karmchari Adarsh Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 500/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 500/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bhilai Karmchari Adarsh Sakh Vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Sector-2, Bhilai, Opposite Aatmanand A-Market, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, School, Risali, Bhilai, 490002. Chhattisgarh. (अपीलाथ" / Appellant ) ( ""थ" / Respondent ) S. A. No: 01/Rpr/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 500/Rpr/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Bhilai Karmchari Adarsh Sakh Vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Sector-2, A- Bhilai, Opposite Aatmanand Market, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, 490002. School, Risali, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aabtb3317L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Moolchand Jain, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 10/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2016-17 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’]. 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Also Filed A Stay Application (‘Sa’) Against The Above Mentioned Ita.

For Appellant: Shri Moolchand Jain, Advocate
Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69Section 69A

acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee

Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 65/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

CBDT's Circular No. 114 XL-35 of 1955, dated 11-4-1955, which read as under: “Administrative instructions for guidance of Income-tax Officers on matters pertaining to assessment 1. The Board has issued instructions from time to time in regard to the attitude which the Officers ... Page 16 of 30 I.TA No.451, 65, 63, 407 Kamlesh V. Ramani & Vashrambhai G Ramani 2. Complaints are still being received that while Income-tax Officers are prompt in making assessments likely to result into demands and in effecting their recovery, they are lethargic and indifferent in granting refunds

Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 63/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

CBDT's Circular No. 114 XL-35 of 1955, dated 11-4-1955, which read as under: “Administrative instructions for guidance of Income-tax Officers on matters pertaining to assessment 1. The Board has issued instructions from time to time in regard to the attitude which the Officers ... Page 16 of 30 I.TA No.451, 65, 63, 407 Kamlesh V. Ramani & Vashrambhai G Ramani 2. Complaints are still being received that while Income-tax Officers are prompt in making assessments likely to result into demands and in effecting their recovery, they are lethargic and indifferent in granting refunds

Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 407/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

CBDT's Circular No. 114 XL-35 of 1955, dated 11-4-1955, which read as under: “Administrative instructions for guidance of Income-tax Officers on matters pertaining to assessment 1. The Board has issued instructions from time to time in regard to the attitude which the Officers ... Page 16 of 30 I.TA No.451, 65, 63, 407 Kamlesh V. Ramani & Vashrambhai G Ramani 2. Complaints are still being received that while Income-tax Officers are prompt in making assessments likely to result into demands and in effecting their recovery, they are lethargic and indifferent in granting refunds

Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen.Cir.-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, (in ITA No

ITA 451/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.451/Rjt/2013 (Assessment Years: (2008-2009) Shri Vashrambhai Ghelabhai Ramani, Vs. The Dcit, 22, Ranchodnagar Society, Kuvadava Central Circle-2, Road, Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bflpr5056N आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.65/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Years: (2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 63/Rjt/2014 &407/Rjt/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Shri Kamlesh Vashrambhai Ramani, Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Prop. Marutinandan Petroleum, 22, Vs. Central Circle-2, Ranchodnagar Society,Rajkot. Rajkot. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahqpr2043D

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

CBDT's Circular No. 114 XL-35 of 1955, dated 11-4-1955, which read as under: “Administrative instructions for guidance of Income-tax Officers on matters pertaining to assessment 1. The Board has issued instructions from time to time in regard to the attitude which the Officers ... Page 16 of 30 I.TA No.451, 65, 63, 407 Kamlesh V. Ramani & Vashrambhai G Ramani 2. Complaints are still being received that while Income-tax Officers are prompt in making assessments likely to result into demands and in effecting their recovery, they are lethargic and indifferent in granting refunds

Ekesh Gaurang Desai, Mumbai vs. Central Circle - 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6116/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarekesh Gaurang Desai Vs Acit Central Circle -1(1), Mumbai C-46, Pandurang Chs, A.B. 321, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nair Road Near Juhu Post Mumbai 400020 Office, Juhu Mumbai-400049 Pan:Aibpd4569L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharangandhi, Adv & Ms. Vinita Nara Adv Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-47, Mumbai [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12, Date Of Order 28.07.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Income-Tax Officer Ward-22(1)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri DharanGandhi, Adv & Ms. Vinita Nara AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12, date of order 28.07.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Income-tax Officer Ward-22(1)(2), Mumbai 2 Ekesh Gaurang Desai (for brevity the Ld. AO), order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A