“Principal Director of Income-tax”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(34C) / Section 1175 judgments

INCOME TAX OFFICER 23 2 6 , MUMBAI vs. MANMOHAN DAULAL RATHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5467/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

nreasons recorded for re-opening, it is noted that “the only basis for forming\nthe belief is the report from the principal Director of Income-tax and the\napplication of mind to the report of the Assessing Officer along with the\nrecord available with him.” In para-4, while concluding

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

ITA 451/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

VINOD GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, UDAIPUR

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

ITA 747/JODH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate and Raksha Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Brij Lal Meena, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 420

Crime No.215/2018 u/s 420 IPC, Sec 102 Cr.PC dated 05.09.2018. A warrant u/s 132A of the IT Act, 1961 was issued by Principal Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Hyderabad to take possession of the unaccounted and untaxed cash from custody of the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Hydrabad. Accordingly

BURHANUDDIN BOHRA,UDAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , UDAIPUR

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

ITA 736/JODH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate and Raksha Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Brij Lal Meena, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 420

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer grossly erred in reopening the assessment proceeding only on the basis of information received from the office of Principal Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad and without applying his own mind independently which is illegal and bad in law and thus deserves to be quashed. 3. That