“permanent account number”

Chapter XIV - Assessment ProcedureSection 139ASection 139A565 judgments

DEEPANSHU SRIVASTAVA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4064/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144B

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI\n\nBEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DEEPANSHU SRIVASTAVA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4063/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI\n\nBEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

CLAYMINE MICRONS LLP,WANKANER vs. PRINCIPAL CIT 1, RAJKOT

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

ITA 216/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 216/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Claymine Microns Llp Vs. Pcit Survey No. 59 At Ratavirda, Nr. Capron Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ceramic Sartanpar Road, Wankaner, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - Gujarat - 363641 360001 Pan/Gir No.: Aamfc4286C (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

MRS. SUREKHA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2419/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Mrs. Surekha (Legal Representative Of Late Shri Devaraj, Since Dead) No.112, 1St Main, Ramarao Layout Vs. Ito Bsk 3Rd Phase, 3Rd Stage Ward 7(2)(5) Bengaluru 560 085 Bengaluru Pan No :Asvps2939R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Balachandran, A.R. Respondent By : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026

For Appellant: Sri Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250

legal representatives of late Shri Kanubhai Nagjibhai Rajpara. 9. The contention advanced by the learned senior standing counsel for the respondent that since Permanent Account Number of late Shri Kanubhai Nagjibhai Mrs. Surekha (Legal Rep. of Late Shri Devaraj, since dead), Bengaluru Page 18 of 19 Rajpara was active ... presumed that tax payer was alive, cannot be sustained in view of the fact that only because Permanent Account Number is active, petitioner or any assessee is not liable to file the return of income and on that basis it cannot be presumed that the assessee is alive, more particularly

CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7381/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am Ca (India) Technologies Private The Income Tax Officer-14(1)(4) Limited Room No. 458, Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, Vibgyor Tower, Mumbai-400 020 Plot C-62, G-Block, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 4971 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 18.09.2018 Of First Appellate Authority, Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 26.02.2026 Has Submitted That The Dispute Has Been Resolved Through Mutual Agreement Procedure (“Map”) & The Assessee Has Accepted The Map Resolution, Hence, Request Has Been Made For Withdrawal Of The Appeal. The Contents Of The Said Letter Are As Under: Dear Sir, Re: Ca (India) Technologies Private Limited ('Ca India' Or 'Appellant') Permanent Account Number ('Pan'): Aaacc4971D Assessment Year ('Ay'): 2014-15 Appeal No. Ita 7381/Mum/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

appeal. The contents of the said letter are as under: Dear Sir, Re: CA (India) Technologies Private Limited ('CA India' or 'Appellant') Permanent Account Number ('PAN'): AAACC4971D Assessment Year ('AY'): 2014-15 Appeal No. ITA 7381/MUM/2018 2 CA (India) Technologies Private Limited vs. ITO Subject: Withdrawal of certain grounds

ACIT CC 4 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAERSK LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 6166/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kant, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)

Section 135Section 250Section 40Section 80G

that the same is applicable only in case of\npayments, where tax is deductible at source, and the payee fails to furnish\ntheir Permanent Account Number to the person responsible for deducting\nsuch tax. However, we find that in the present case, the consistent plea of\nthe assessee is that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AVIMA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1599/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

discharged the onus by placing (i) confirmation letters of the cash creditors; (ii) their affidavits; (iii) their full addresses and GIR numbers and permanent account numbers. It has found that the assessee's burden stood discharged and so, no addition to his total income on account of cash credit ... Officer to assessee.\n16. In the case before us, the appellant by producing the loan-confirmation-certificates signed by the creditors, disclosing their permanent account numbers and address and further indicating that the loan was taken by account payee cheques, no doubt, prima facie, discharged the initial burden and those

JADAGADDER PAKKERAPPA, LEGAL HEIR SAROJAMMA,SHIKARIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1406/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Varun Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 250

Rajpara. Jadagadder Pakkerappa, Shikaripura Page 19 of 20 9. The contention advanced by the learned senior standing counsel for the respondent that since Permanent Account Number of late Shri Kanubhai Nagjibhai Rajpara was active, it can be presumed that tax payer was alive, cannot be sustained in view ... fact that only because Permanent Account Number is active, petitioner or any assessee is not liable to file the return of income and on that basis it cannot be presumed that the assessee is alive, more particularly, when the department is made to know about the death of the assessee

AGNELO GUSTAVO EUGENIO RODRIGUES,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 24 1 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

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

ITA 5079/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

For Appellant: \nShri Ajay Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

{"clean_text": "IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

KIPPY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC - 3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2727/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

{"clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA\nBEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 3847/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

present appeals. The relevant extracts of the said written request letter are reproduced as under: “ Sub: McDonald's Corporation ('Corp' or the 'Appellant') Permanent Account Number ('PAN'): AAECM0624M Assessment Years ('AY'): AY 2012-13 to AY 2014-15 Bench -D Ref: Request for withdrawal of appeals on account of application

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 5609/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, AY

ITA 211/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 295(2)(h)

VENKATA SUJATHA CHRUVUPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR

Section 124(3)(a)Section 127(2)Section 129Section 143(2)

departmental\nsoftware, Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection, and that there was no\nhuman intervention involved in the selection. It is further stated that\nthe Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the Petitioner fell within the\njurisdiction of Respondent No. 2 and hence notice was sent by the\nOffice of Respondent

EDELWEISS CROSSOVER OPPORTUNITIES FUND,SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. WARD 22(1)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS

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

ITA 7439/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 144BSection 270A

nmanagers of an AIF are required to maintain separate bank\naccounts and separate securities accounts for each scheme and,\nfor this purpose, separate Permanent Account Numbers are\nobtained for each scheme, though the registration as an AIF\ncontinues to remain in the name of the Trust.\n14. The learned ... record, to demonstrate that even SEBI itself\nrecognises the practical and legal position that separate schemes\nof an AIF operate with separate Permanent Account Numbers. It\nwas pointed out that SEBI, while dealing with representations\nfrom the AIF industry, has recorded that majority of SEBI\nregistered AIFs

M/S. SWARNIM LEASING & HOLDINGS LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 22(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 5528/Del/25 is dismissed

ITA 5528/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 139A(7)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We are of the considered view that the assessee was maintaining two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) which is prohibited in India under Section 139A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regardless of whether the second PAN was obtained

BIJAY KUMAR SARAF,DALDALI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1,MUZFFARPUR, IT-OFFICE, POLICE LINE, SIKANDERPUR MUZZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 205/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194(7)Section 194C(6)Section 250

year and on his furnishing a declaration to that effect along ITA No.: 205/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bijay Kumar Saraf. with the permanent account number to the payer, no deduction u/s 194C is liable to be made. It was also stated that no liability arose u/s 194J for accounting ... owns ten or less goods carriages at any time during the previous year and furnishes a declaration to that effect along with his Permanent Account Number, to the person paying or crediting such sum. The Ld. AR submitted that earlier the requirement was only of furnishing the PANs

ASSTT. COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) -3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. KUWAIT INVESTMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5351/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

{"clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)\nAND

DEEPSONS (INDIA) PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandradeepsons (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 31St Floor, Community Income Tax, Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Circle 7(1), Area, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaacd3267B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

Section 115BSection 68

taxpayer and its clients who have deducted Income-tax at source on behalf of the taxpayer as well wrong mention/punching of the permanent account number of the tax payers by the clients while filing the TDS retums with the Department. One of the reasons for differential could be that

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7070/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

addition for the reason that the proprietor of the firm does not know anything about the business and she has given her permanent account number to someone at a monthly compensation of ₹ 10,000. c) With respect to parties stated at serial number 17 to 21, the disallowance is made

Showing 1–20 of 565 · Page 1 of 29

...