“principal officer”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(35)593 judgments

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMBICA DHATU PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2389/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

premium were received by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) also discussed the issue of summons under Section 131 of the Act to the Principal Officers of 9 investor companies and also replies received from the said companies though none appeared personally. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the Assessing

MARK STEELS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2603/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

genuine turnover of a web of entitles. For Comfort Merchandise, the Appellant has not produced contemporaneous lender financials, bank statements evidencing capacity, or principal officers for examination, and the non-compliance during reassessment prevented the AO from verifying capacity/genuineness amidst adverse Investigation Wing material, thereby failing section 68's burden

EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1031/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Nimashri K.A., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

given under sec. 191, which reads as under:- Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that if any person including the principal officer of a company,— (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) referred

SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE MALLESHWARAM ,BANGALORE vs. THE JT./ ADDL.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (I & CI) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2312/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Section 271Section 271FSection 285B

enables Reporting Entity to file the SFTs. Usually,\nthe person posted as Sub-Registrar/Sr.Sub-Registrar to\nany Sub-Registrar's Office will be the Principal Officer as\nwell as Designated Director for the purpose of using the\nITDREIN no. of that particular SRO office and it will be\nactivated

SAGAR DWELLINGS P LTD,NEAR SUN TEMPLE GWALIOR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 373/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

name of the assessee, M/s. Sagar Dwellings Pvt. Ltd. during F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15. Summon was issued to the principal officer of the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted ledger account of purchases made from M/s. Jai Baba Gurudev Traders, however, no bill or transport receipt ... Traders in the name of M/s Sagar Dwellings Pvt. Ltd. during FY 2013-14, relevant to AY 2014-15. Summon was issued to the principal officer of the assessee company. In reply, ledger account of purchases made from M/s Jai Baba Gurudev Traders was produced. However, no bill or transport

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. KUKREJA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 2102/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit – 14(1)(1), Mumbai M/S. Kukreja Builders Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, 4 & 5Th Floor, Sai Mumbai - 400020 Commercial Building, Bks Vs. Devshi Marg., Govandi (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra– 400088 Pan: Aacck5040M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee During The A.Y. Under Consideration Had Declared Its Total Income As Rs. 2,20,00,580/- By Filing Its Return Of Income, Which Was Initially Processed Under Section 143 Of The Act. 2 M/S. Kukreja Builders Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh & Shri AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (SR. D.R.)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143Section 250Section 68

verify the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, issued summons under Section 131 of the Act dated 15.03.2016 to the Principal Officers of the above mentioned parties for giving evidences and producing personally, the books of accounts and other documents, specified in annexure enclosed therein

PARK VIEW AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 19(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5711/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13 Park View Automotives P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, S-606, School Block, Ward 19(3), Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecp3499H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca & Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

upon recording of reasons. Relevant to mention that bank statements of those companies were examined and analysed, summons were also issued to the principal officers of those companies through Departmental Inspectors who visited the addresses of the company for physical verification, but, no companies were found thereon. Thus, identity ... absence of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction having been established either by these parties or by the assessee and the principal officers of those concerns, and further that in the absence of any response made 9 by the said companies, the accommodation entry providers against the notice issued

GOMTI RESEARCH AND PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1517/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Suhana T.H.M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy .N, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 156Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 40a

said proviso. First proviso to Section 201(1) “Consequences of failure to deduct or pay. 201. (1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company,— (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) referred to in sub-section ... consequences which he may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax: Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter

RAO KHEM CHAND VIDYA VIHAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,REWARI vs. ITO-TDS,ROHTAK, ROHTAK

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

ITA 3856/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 191Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)Section 201Section 234ESection 40a

shall be payable by the assessee direct. **** Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that if any person including the principal officer of a company,— (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) referred ... section (1) of section-201, in respect of such tax. Consequences of failure to deduct or pay. 201. (1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company,— (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or Page

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2359/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3),\nAnvakar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700 107.\nPhone No. (033) 2441 0308. Email-kolkata.dcit.cen4.3@incometax.gov.in\nDOC.C.4(3)/Kol/AAICS0672B/2017-18/2725\nDated: 04.12.2017\nThe Principal Officer\nSen Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd\n11, Hemanta Basu Sarani\n2nd Floor, Room No.206\nKolkata-700006\nSir,\nSub: Assessment proceedings in your case ... below:-\nSI.\nNo.\nName & Address of the share applicant\nDate of Issuing\nSummons\nDate\nreturned\nw's\nSummons\nreturned\nwhen\nRemarks\n131\n1.\nThe Principal Officer.\nM/s Kokila Exports Pvt. Ltd.,\n1ª Floor, 8 Madan Mohan Burman St.,\nKolkata-700007.\n27.10.2017\n02.11.2017\nReturned un-served with remarks\n"Addressee Moved/Not

SEN FERRO ALLOYS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2358/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

CENTRAL CIRCLE-\n4(3),\nAnvakar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700 107.\nPhone No. (033) 2441 0308. Email-kolkata.dcit.cen4.3@incometax.gov.in\nDOC.C.4(3)/Kol/AAICS06728/2017-18/2725\nDated: 04.12.2017\nThe Principal Officer\nSen Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd\n11, Hemanta Basu Sarani\nFloor, Room No.206\nKolkata-700006\nSir,\nSub: Assessment proceedings in your case ... table below:-\nSI.\nNo.\nName & Address of the share applicant\nDate of Issuing\nSummons\nDate\nreturned\nw's\nSummons\nwhen\nRemarks\n131\n1.\nThe Principal Officer.\nM/s Kokila Exports Pvt. Ltd.,\n1st Floor, 8 Madan Mohan Burman St.,\nKolkata-700007.\n27.10.2017\n02.11.2017\nReturned un-served with remarks\n"Addressee Moved/Not

ACIT CC 7(4), MUMBAI vs. AAYUSH INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5915/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

copies of their income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements evidencing disbursement and repayment of loans through banking channels, and affidavits of the principal officers affirming the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee also furnished updated addresses of the lenders and demonstrated that the loans, 5 Aayush Infotech ... companies, copies of their income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements evidencing disbursement of loans through normal banking channels, and affidavits of the principal officers of the lender companies affirming the genuineness of the transactions. It is also an undisputed fact that the entire loan amounts were repaid

AMSTEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3129/CHNY/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3129/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT

Section 170ASection 250

paid by such company by way of dividend or interim dividend. Sub-section (3) thereof further provides that the Amsteel Castings Pvt. Ltd. :- 5 -: principal officer of the domestic company and the company shall be liable to pay tax on distributed profits to the credit of the Central Government within

RUBY SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, DELHI

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

ITA 4772/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Ms. Ruby Singh, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of R-543, New Rajendra Nagar, Income Tax, New Delhi: 1100 60 Central Circle 8, Pan No. Anaps3827J New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahir Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 274Section 68

Investigation Wing in the case of M/s. SLG Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kirti India Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and Maan Promoters Pvt. Ltd. through Principal Officer Shri Kirtiman Singh, Professor Colony Karam Toli, Ranchi, Jharkhand. During the course of survey and post survey investigations in the above-noted three cases, transactions/information pertaining

M/S. SOUTH WEST PINNACLE EXPLORATION LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4076/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), Plot No.6, 4Th Floor, Sector 44, New Delhi. Gurugram – 122 003 (Haryana). (Pan : Aakcs3608R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2026 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit (A)”, For Short] Dated 17.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issues Involved In The Present Appeal Are Squarely Covered By Various Decisions & He Heavily Relied Upon The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench In The Case Of Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit (2025) 174

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

assessment order. According to AO, as per report of the DDIT (Inv.) Kolkata in response to summons issued to the above creditors neither the principal officer appeared on the date and time nor any request for adjournment was made and it was further mentioned that inspector had visited the premises

THE UDHNA CITIZEN CO OPP. BANK LIMITED ,NOW MERGE WITH KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.OP. BANK LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. I.T.O TDS -2 , SURAT

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

ITA 512/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40

will be relevant to reproduce the provision of section 201(1) of the Act, which is as under: 1)Where any person, including the principal officer of a company,— (a)who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (b)referred ... consequences which he may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax: Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6016/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

assessee claimed to have received share capital and loans. Some of them complied by filing confirmation, copy of bank statement, copy of ITR. The Principal Officer/ Directors of those companies were directed to be produced for examination in order to prove the genuineness of the transactions entered into, the creditworthiness

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, GUJARAT

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

ITA 6159/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

were completed. On 27 October 2014, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 9 (1) addressed a communication to the Principal Officer, SPIL seeking a response to a detailed questionnaire. Thereafter, on 4 September 2015, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1) called for disclosure of information ... course of the assessment for AY 2012-13. The communication was addressed to: "The Principal Officer M/s Suzuki Power Train India Limited (Now known as M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited)." 9. The Ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai ‘C’ Bench in the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KALPATARU PROJECTS INERNATIONAL LIMITED, GUJARAT

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

ITA 6114/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, GUJARAT

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

ITA 6113/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

Showing 1–20 of 593 · Page 1 of 30

...