“Inspector of Income-tax”

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

Judgments citing Inspector of Income-tax

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 377/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

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

Dinesh Haldia, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 384/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153ASection 260ASection 69C

Again the assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). ……………….. …………. 6. Considering the report of the Inspector of Income-tax and submissions of some parties, who are available, from whom wool was purchased, third time addition have been reduced to Rs. 1,12,500. 7. în appeal

Ashish Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Ashish Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), R-11/32, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Agipg3854E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Gupta, Ca Shri Mukesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 Date Of Order : 13.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Ghaziabad Dated 25.07.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Because The Order Of Ld. Lower Authority Is Bad In Law As Well As Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Because Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gain Rs.13230858/- By Wrongly Observing That Land Situated At Village Masuri Pargana Dasna Is Within The Municipal Limits Of Ghaziabad Though The Agricultural Land Is Undisputedly Beyond

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 2(14)

provisions of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). To verify this claim, Assessing Officer deputed Inspector of Income-tax who has submitted his report dated 29.02.2016 stating that the said land is situated within 5 kms from the municipal limits of Ghaziabad. Assessee ... find that assessee’s arguments have sufficient cogency. It is correct that the distance of 5 kms. from Dasna flyover, Govindpuram confirmed by Inspectors of Income-tax Department and Tehsildar were on the date of their respective inspections i.e. February 8 and March 2016. On the other hand, assessee

Mohammad Junaid, Chandausi vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Chandausi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1033/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Mr. S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Ramsha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty

Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

designated verification unit took an attempt to serve the notice physically upon the assessee, which was refused to be accepted. Thereafter, the Inspector of Income-tax affixed the notice on the shop of the assessee on 07.06.2021, the photographs whereof are appearing at pages 5, 6 & 7 of the assessment

Mohammad Junaid, Chandausi vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Chandausi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1032/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Mr. S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Ramsha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty

Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

Mohammad Junaid, Chandausi vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Chandausi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2967/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Mr. S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Ramsha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty

Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Sandeep Hooda, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 5670/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshasstt. Yr: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 54

assessee on or before 25.09.2017 (i.e. three years from the date of transfer i.e. 25.09.2014). Even as late as on 7.12.2017, the Inspector of Income-tax along with Office 10 Superintendent attached to the office of the learned AO, together with the Authorized Representative of the assessee (who appeared before

Deshraj Kasana, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3663/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 144Section 147Section 148

same was sent through speed post, which was received back undelivered. The same notice was served upon the assessee through affixture by the Inspector of Income-tax on 25.05.2016. No compliance was made by the assessee in the reassessment proceedings. The learned AO on perusal of the savings bank account

Narmada Concast Private Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 33/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148

recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act on 19/07/2018 (vi) These companies were found to be non-existent as per enquiry made by Inspector of Income-tax. Further, during the course of analysis and examination of the bank statements of paper/shell companies of Banka Group, the entire scheme of arrangement

DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mota Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2195/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Premises, Plot No. R-798. TTC Industrial Area, Village Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400 710". 4.To further investigate, field enquiries were conducted by the Inspector of Income-tax by visiting all the three address of the subject and it was found that there is no business entity named 4 M/s. Mota

Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Sheoshinghpur, Akoda, Phulera-303338 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

forward their case as required by section 33B of the Income-tax Act, The facts in this case were that the inspector of income-tax who had to serve notices under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, claimed to have served the notice by affixing them

Ameen Uddin, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3(4), Bhopal

ITA 101/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ameen Uddin, I.T.O., 11, Kumharpura Road, 3(4), बनाम/ Galla Bazar, Bhopal Shahjahanabad, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaupu 8393 G Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.07.2023

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

assessee’s house is also No. 11) and the assessee could not be located. The AO has further noted that the Inspector of Income-tax Department was also deputed to serve another notice dated 17.12.2015 u/s 142(1) but even the Inspector could not find address despite making all efforts

Ahuja and Anand Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 349/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 68

that the unsecured loans availed are not genuine. While coming to such conclusion, he also relied upon the field report submitted by the Inspector of Income-Tax, who was deputed by the Assessing Officer to inquire about the genuineness of the loan transaction. Thus, ultimately the Assessing Officer held that

Shuaib Ahmed, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 65(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7782/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R

Section 144Section 147Section 148

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

DCIT Cor 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Build Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 1100/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR

Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A

case was fixed for hearing on 19.03.2012. 15.2.2. On 19.03.2012, Shri Abhyuday Anand, ACIT.25(3) appeared along with Shri Santosh Kumar Jha, Inspector of Income-tax and produced the original impounded materials. Similarly, Shri Jayesh Kala, FCA and A.R. of the appellant appeared along with Ms. Radhika Agarwal

ACIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Built Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 4122/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR

Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A