← All Phrases

“Principal Commissioner of Income-tax”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(34B) / Section 1171,805 judgments

The decision most relied on for Principal Commissioner of Income-tax is CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), cited in 1,162 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

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.

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.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subodh Agarwal
149 Taxmann.com 373 · 2023 · High Court
194
citing judgments

Approval of draft assessment orders under Section 153D must be granted with due application of mind, not mechanically. Approving multiple cases, such as 38 in a single day, without proper scrutiny amounts to mechanical approval, rendering the assessment invalid.

Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT
386 ITR 162 · 2016 · High Court
131
citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner can revise an assessment under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry into share application money or cash credits under Section 68 was inadequate, constituting an order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The primary onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of such credits remains with the assessee.

Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
457 ITR 647 · 2023 · High Court
95
citing judgments

The amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, governing the sanction for reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A, applies to cases initiated under the new reassessment regime. The specified authority for granting such sanction becomes the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Agson Global (P.) Ltd.
441 ITR 550 · 2022 · High Court
87
citing judgments

When an assessee maintains proper books of accounts without defects, cash deposits made into a bank account from the available cash balance recorded in the cash book cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 or unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 312 · 2017 · High Court
86
citing judgments

The date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of Section 275(1)(c) is when the Assessing Officer records a satisfaction or recommends penalty, not the later date when the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issues the penalty notice.

Judgments citing Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

Balaji Temple Trust, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sri Balaji Temple Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer Rajam, Srikakulam Exemption Ward [Pan : Aamts4258G] Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari,Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044994193(1) Dated 29.08.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U//S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Public Religious Trust, Which Was Granted Registration U/S 12A On 10.07.2014. The 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari,ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(iia)

Kanchara Street, Rajam, Srikakulam 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Infinity Tower, Shankaramatham Road, Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Visakhapatnam 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम DR,ITAT, / Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT

M\S. Lexico Ceramics, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 1/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-15 M/S Lexico Ceramics, C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, Income-Tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park Brts Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aaefl 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

WASEEM AHMED, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rajkot-1 [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. Pr. CIT” for short] dated 31.03.2021 passed in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-Tax ... shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant.” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 2 v. Shree Gayatri Associates*[2019] 106 taxmann.com 31 (SC), held that where Pr. CIT passed a revised order after making addition to assessee

Meka Ranganayakamma, Gosala vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in-limine

ITA 39/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.39/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Meka Ranganayakamma Vs. Income Tax Officer Gosala, Penamaluru Mandal Ward-2(4) Krishna District Vijayawada [Pan : Bfjpm1961H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Vijayawada Vide Appeal No.10293/Cit(A)/Vja/18-19 Dated 23.07.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 With The Inordinate Delay Of 898 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That The Assessee Fell Down While Climbing Down The Stair Case On 15.09.2019, Suffered From Severe Back Pain & She Was Advised Bed Rest Till 14.12.2019. As The Assessee Did Not Recover, She Continued To Be Confined

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Meka Ranganayakamma, Gosala, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Vijayawada 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम DR,ITAT, / Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam

Lakshmi Constructions, Nellore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the A

ITA 7/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.4/Viz/2023 To 7/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Dr.No.26-3-560, Sln Towers Income Tax Iv Floor, B.V.Nagar Central Circle-1 Mini Bypass Road Guntur Nellore [Pan : Abofs2978J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Visakhapatnam-3 Dated 30.11.2022 For The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013-14 To 2016-17. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.4/Viz/2023 .

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145

Floor, B.V.Nagar, Mini Bypass Road, Nellore 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Guntur 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम DR,ITAT, / Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary