← All Phrases

“Inspector of Income-tax”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(28) / Section 11736 judgments

Judgments citing Inspector of Income-tax

Imran Yunusbhai Malwat, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2025/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Shri Soheb Luhari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 80CSection 80G

withdrawal for expenses like rent, electricity, water, newspaper, fuel etc of RSP and is not reflecting in the bank account. There is an Inspector of Income-tax was deputed to visit the premises of RSP at UG-8. Harekrishna Complex, C.TM Char Rasta, Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad

Rajen Jayantilal Merchant, Ahmedabad vs. Assessment Unit, Juris. AO- the ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1683/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 151ASection 80Section 80G

withdrawal for expenses like rent, electricity, water, newspaper, fuel etc of RSP and is not reflecting in the bank account. There is an Inspector of Income-tax was deputed to visit the premises of RSP at UG-8. Harekrishna Complex, C.TM Char Rasta, Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Mohd Rizwan, Delhi

ITA 3535/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Delhi. (Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 80C

this judgement is reproduced below “4. The Assessing Officer in compliance of the direction of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) deputed the Inspector of Income-tax. The Inspector of Income-tax went and contacted some parties. As per his report, some parties had expired and whereabouts of most

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

loan creditor is non-existent and for making this addition. 7.20 In Assessing Officer VS. Ramendra Nath Ghosh, 82 ITR 888 (SC), the Inspector of Income-tax, who was the service officer, claimed to have served the notice by affixing it on the assessee’s place of business

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

loan creditor is non-existent and for making this addition. 7.20 In Assessing Officer VS. Ramendra Nath Ghosh, 82 ITR 888 (SC), the Inspector of Income-tax, who was the service officer, claimed to have served the notice by affixing it on the assessee’s place of business

Assistantcommissionerof Incometax, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. M/S. Anubandh Financial Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2390/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions at both their then registered addresses and old addresses at the time of allotment of shares. The Inspector of Income-tax attached to the office of the Investigation Wing was deputed in order to verify the genuineness of the business of the 6 companies ... order, summons under section 131 were issued but none of the companies was found to be operating as per the report of the Inspector of Income-tax as is mentioned at pages 3 and 4 of the assessment order. It was submitted that some documentary evidences like copy of audited

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 569/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

purposes of clause (i) of sub-section (1), clause (i) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (5), includes an Inspector of Income-tax, if so authorised by any such authority; ITA Nos.568 and 569/Bang/2025 Page 11 of 15 (b) 'proceeding' means any proceeding under this Act in respect

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 568/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

purposes of clause (i) of sub-section (1), clause (i) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (5), includes an Inspector of Income-tax, if so authorised by any such authority; ITA Nos.568 and 569/Bang/2025 Page 11 of 15 (b) 'proceeding' means any proceeding under this Act in respect

Shailesh Goyal, Tonk vs. ACIT, Centre Circle Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 496/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Joint Director, an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director or an Assessing Officer, or a Tax Recovery Officer; and (ii) includes an Inspector of Income-tax, for the purposes of clause (i) of sub-section (1), clause (i) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (5), who is subordinate

C.G. Buildcon Private Limited, Raipur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is dismissed

ITA 300/RPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.300/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 C.G Buildcon Private Limited B-1, 3Rd Floor, C.G. Elite, Opp. Mandi Gate, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Aaccc5355P

For Appellant: Shri S.N Agrawal, CA (Joined virtually)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 801Section 80I

obtain from the competent authority a “completion certificate” within the prescribed period, a fact that was further supported by the report of the Inspector of Income-Tax who had carried out spot inquiry, the A.O, based on the said fresh/tangible material had arrived at a bonafide belief that the assessee ... information gathered in the course of the assessment proceedings for A.Y.2012-13, which in turn was supported by the report of the Inspector of Income-Tax and revealed that the assessee company had not obtained a “completion certificate” within the prescribed time period as per the mandate of Sec. 80IB

Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel and Brijesh Pravinbhai Patel AOP, Anand vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1017/AHD/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 13ASection 143Section 80G

withdrawal for expenses like rent, electricity, water, newspaper, fuel etc of RSP and is not reflecting in the bank account. There is an Inspector of Income-tax was deputed to visit the premises of RSP at UG-8. Harekrishna Complex, C.TM Char Rasta, Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad

Bharat Associates, Bundi vs. ACIT (OSD), Bundi

ITA 1293/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbharat Associates, Gayatri Nagar, Bundi, Bundi 323001. Pan No. Aamfb 3655N ..... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244ASection 250Section 292CSection 37(1)Section 40

Joint Director, an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director or an Assessing Officer, or a Tax Recovery Officer; and (ii) includes an Inspector of Income-tax, for the purposes of clause (i) of sub-section (1), clause (i) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (5), who is subordinate

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 3059/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

year under consideration as well as the preceding year that quantitative details of principle items of goods traded are not furnished therein. 7. Inspector of Income-tax was sent to visit the business premises of the assessee for which a report was furnished. In the said report, it was stated

Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 2814/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

year under consideration as well as the preceding year that quantitative details of principle items of goods traded are not furnished therein. 7. Inspector of Income-tax was sent to visit the business premises of the assessee for which a report was furnished. In the said report, it was stated

Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 2813/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma and Ms. Komal TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

year under consideration as well as the preceding year that quantitative details of principle items of goods traded are not furnished therein. 7. Inspector of Income-tax was sent to visit the business premises of the assessee for which a report was furnished. In the said report, it was stated

Liyakat Rojan Miya Ansari, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward2(1), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 464/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.464/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Liyakat Rojan Miya Ansari, Vs. The Ito, 252, Royal Park Society, Palod, Ward – 2(1), Mangrol, Surat - 394110 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeupl7280B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 69A

account. Before us, the appellant was provided four opportunities of hearing. The ld. AR of the assessee was also personally contacted by the Inspector of Income-tax Department. He ITA No.464/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Liyakat Rojan Miya Ansari also did not respond to the notices issued by us nor any written submission

State Bank of India, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road vs. ACIT, DCIT-TDS, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 728/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Sr
Section 10(5)Section 191(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 292BSection 4(1)

shall be taken by an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director or an Assessing Officer or a Tax Recovery Officer or an Inspector of Income-tax without obtaining the approval of the Joint Director of the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be] Explanation.—In this section,— [(a) "income-tax ... purposes of clause (i) of sub-section (1), clause (i) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (5), includes an Inspector of Income-tax] (b) "proceeding" means any proceeding under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date on which the powers under this

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4050/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., Room No.91, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-30, New Delhi. 2B Grant Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal. Pan: Aabcr3491C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate & Ms Ragini Handa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pitambar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.320/15-16/2297 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pitambar Das, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Supreme Court in the case of Ramendra Nath Ghosh v. CIT, 82 ITR 888, observed as under (as per head note): "The Inspector of Income-tax who had to serve notices under Section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, claimed to have served the notices by affixing them

Shri Mahipal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/DEL/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 20000-01 Shri Mahipal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Vijay Kumar Gupta, Ward-Ii(4), Advocate, Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad Main Bazar, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad -121004. Pan: Atvpp9291R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282

Supreme Court in the case of Ramendra Nath Ghosh v. CIT, 82 ITR 888, observed as under (as per head note): "The Inspector of Income-tax who had to serve notices under Section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, claimed to have served the notices by affixing them

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Nisha Jain, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 378/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131

shall be taken by an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director or an Assessing Officer or a Tax Recovery Officer or an Inspector of Income-tax without obtaining the approval of the Joint Director or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be.]” A bare perusal of the said provision