“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

Skylark Mercantile Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-11(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3120/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Anikesh Banerjee

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

short, ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2010-11, date of order 09/04/2024. The impugned order was originated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 11(2)(1), Mumbai (for brevity the "Ld.AO") passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act, date of order 28/12/2017. 2. The assessee

The Satara Dcc Bank Staff Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 633/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.633/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Satara Dcc Bank Staff V The Asst. Commissioner Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., S. Of Income Tax, Satara S.No.523 A/1, Vijay Circle, Satara. Millenium, Shop No.2, Satara, Maharashtra – 415001. Pan: Aaaat0953G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms. Renuka Arunrao Ghatge Fca– Ar Revenue By Shri Vinodpawar,Irs – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2018-19, Dated 06.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Nfac-Cit (A), Delhi, Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer (A.O.) In Making Addition Of Rs. 93,91,184/- On

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kolhapur District Central Co-op. Bank Kanista SevakanchiSahakar Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer 158 taxmann.com 322 (Pune Tribunal) has held as under : Quote “7………………………..I am of the considered opinion that even the interest income earned by cooperative society on deposits

Lahanda Gomarda Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Uttar Dinajpur vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Lahanda Gomarda Samabay Income Tax Officer, Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. Ward 2(4), Maharaja Hat, Lahanda, It Office, Sbi Building, Vs. Dist. Uttar Dinajpur, Karnojhora, Raiganj, West West Bengal 733129 Dinajpur, West Bengal-733134 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaal5359A Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kapil Monda, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Kapil Monda, DR

Section 143(2)

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

Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Palakkad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 843/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18 Abdulla Kattil Kottur Mp3/562 Selected Plaza Near Panchayath Mannarkad Ito Vs. Palakkad District Ward-1 & Tps Kerala 678 582 Palakkad Pan No :Azrpa9183C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 26.7.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067077218(1) For The Ay 2017- 18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad Page 2 Of 10 Abdulla Kattil Kottur, Palakkad Page 3 Of 10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80D

Section 48, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.7.1995).], the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).] may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to one-half per cent. of the total sales, turnover or gross

G4S Secure Solutions (India) Private Limited, West Delhi, India vs. Central Processing Center, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5285/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24 G4S Secure Solutions (India) Vs Cpc, Private Limited, Bengaluru. 9Th Floor, Tower-B, Good Earth Trade Tower, Sector-62, Bhondsi So (168), Gurugram, Haryana – 122 102. Pan: Aaacg1625Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal By The Appellant/Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 23.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Appeal Arising Out Of The Order Dated 27.03.2024 U/S 143(1) Of The Act Of The Cpc, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Ao’), For Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Original Return Of Income Along With Form 10Da On 29.11.2023. Subsequently, The Return Of Income Along With Form 10Da Was Revised On 30.12.2023. The Cpc Processed The Return Disallowing Deduction U/S 80Jjaa Of The Act, Vide Intimation Dated 27.03.2024. Against This Intimation Dated 27.03.2024, The Appellant Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) Which Was Partly Allowed, Vide Order Dated 23.09.2024. 3. Being Aggrieved, The Appellant-Assessee Has Preferred The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80J

Ahmedabad-Trib.); - Jeans Knit (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 480 (Bangalore- Trib.) - Krushi Vibhag Karmchari Vrund Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit vs. Income-tax Officer [2023] 147 taxmann.com 449 (Nagpur-Trib.); & - Captain Steel India Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 166 taxmann.com 351 (Kolkata-Trib

Ess Kay Fabrication, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2924/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

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

Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Patna v. Anurag Rice Mills [2017] 88 taxmann.com 420 (Patna) (vi)Nova Medicare v. Income-tax Officer [2023] 150 taxmann.com 363 (Telangana) (vii)Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex [2018] 89 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) 5 [Department SLP dismissed-Principal Commissioner

DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Manish Uppal, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3061/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

from assessment because of his failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Once there exist reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to form the above belief, that would be sufficient to clothe him with jurisdiction to issue notice. Whether the grounds are adequate ... matter for the Court to investigate. The sufficiency of grounds which induce the income-tax Officer to act is, therefore, not a justifiable issue. It is, of course, open to the assessee to contend that the Income-tax Officer did not hold the belief that there had been such nondisclosure

A, C.I.T. Central Cir.- 2(2), Nagpur vs. Smt. Rajkumari Dharampal Agrawal, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 289/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

Assessing officer. Under the said rule, the learned CIT(A) was permitted to admit evidence only under the following circumstances:– “(a) where the Income-tax Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing ... sufficient cause from producing defire the Income tax Officer any evidence which is relevant ito any ground of appeal (d) where the Income-tax Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to additional evidence relevant in any ground of appeal." 8. We have

Smt Rajkumari Dharampal Agrawal, Nagpur vs. A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 235/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 302/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

cannot be sustained. 9. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act reads as under: “271. (1) If the Income-tax Officer or ….. in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person: (a) xx xx, or Assessment Year

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 279/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Moraj Building Concepts Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 278/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Mulund Samata Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-41(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6432/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh Patare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 3Section 5Section 80P(2)(d)

BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mulund Samata Co-operative Income-tax Officer, Housing Society Ltd., Ward 41(2)(3), Hindustan Chowk, Mumbai Vs. Mulund Colony, Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400 080 (PAN : AABAN3165A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, Punjabi Bagh Extension vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-44(6), New Delhi, Civic Centre

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

ITA 958/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, Vs Income-Tax Officer, House No.11, Street No.23, Ward-44(6), Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 026. Pan: Aiips0365E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shivam Malik, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ram Krishan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal By The Appellant Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 3Rd January, 2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Appeal Arising Out Of The Order Dated 24.12.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Of The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-44(6), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Ao’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed Itr For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 04.11.2017 Declaring The Income At Rs.13,27,320/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass For The Reasons, ‘Abnormal Cash Deposit During Demonetization Period.’ Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 16.08.2018 Was Issued. Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 02.05.2019 Containing A Detailed Questionnaire Was Issued. Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 03.06.2019 Was Issued, But, The Assessee Did Not File The Reply. On The Basis Of The Information, The Ld. Ao Completed The Proceedings Vide Order Dated 24.12.2019 By Making An Addition Of Rs.1,08,40,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, Vs Income-tax Officer, House No.11, Street No.23, Ward-44(6), Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 026. PAN: AIIPS0365E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shivam Malik, Advocate Revenue ... hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in appeal arising out of the order dated 24.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act of the Income-tax Officer, Ward-44(6), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’), for assessment year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Waryam Steel Casting Private Limited, Kanganwal Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 757/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 148Section 250

assessee - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted - Held, yes Cheil India (P.) Ltd. v .Income-tax Officer, Word 3(3), New Delhi [2016] 68 taxmann.com 410 (Delhi - Trib.) (xiv) Where purchases made by assessee-trader were duly supported by bills and payments ... Officer had accepted sales corresponding to bogus purchases, addition of 5 per cent of alleged bogus purchases was made to income of assessee. Income-tax Officer 24(1)(4) v. Deepak Khusaldas Mehta [2017] 83 taxmann.com 63 (Mumbai - Trib.) (xvii) Factum of bogus purchase established - Sales accepted, no reason

Waryam Steel Castings Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 148Section 250

Gnanapragasam Bhaskar, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ncw-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 3069/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3069/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gnanapragasam Bhaskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/22-C, Sahayamatha Colony, Non Corporate Ward 1, T.V.K. Nagar, Chinnalapatti Post, Dindigul. Dindigul 624 301. [Pan:Ahtpb8288M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 246 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 69A

that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. That is not the position in the case before

Samarth Surksha Rakshak Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Sanpada vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5497/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5496 and 5497/MUM/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 and 2020-21 Samarth Surksha Rakshak Co-op Income-tax Officer, Credit Society Ltd., Ward 28.3.1, Shop No. 23, Shantiniketan Navi Mumbai Vs. Housing Society, 30/A, Balaji Tower, Sanpada East, Thane, Maharashtra, 400705. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present

Samarth Surksha Rakshak Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Sanpada vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5496/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

Vijaya Lakshmi Ravula, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 218/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

Bang.) as well as the decision of the Hyderabad Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Kiran Reddy Gangidi v. Income-tax Officer reported in 163 Taxmann.com 766. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that in all these binding precedents, it has been held that mere entering into