Which cases are most cited on Section 10(37)?

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167) — 897 citing judgments; ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329) — 438 citing judgments; CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1) — 363 citing judgments; Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar (8 SCC 24) — 263 citing judgments; Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (5 SCC 482) — 261 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 10(37)?

BharatTax indexes 558 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167) is the decision most relied on for Section 10(37), cited in 897 judgments. The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10(37) falls under section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 11 (Incomes not included in total income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 11 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 10(37) is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), cited in 897 of the 558 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(37)

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court

897

citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.

343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court

438

citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court

363

citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar

8 SCC 24 · 2001 · Supreme Court

263

citing judgments

A statutory explanation that is clarificatory in nature applies retrospectively from the date the main provision came into force. However, if an explanation changes the law, it is not presumed to be retrospective, even if phrases like 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts' are used.

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT

5 SCC 482 · 1997 · Supreme Court

261

citing judgments

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

Rama Bai v. CIT

181 ITR 400 · 1990 · Supreme Court

258

citing judgments

Interest income is taxable on either an accrual or cash basis, determined by accounting principles. This method was applicable prior to legislative changes that simplified the taxation of interest income.

KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51

10 SCC 1 · 2014 · Supreme Court

250

citing judgments

The judgment in Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. does not appear to be directly cited for a specific income tax proposition in the provided passages. The passages merely list it as one of several cases cited in subsequent judgments, without detailing its specific contribution to the legal reasoning.

Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO

70 Taxmann.com 227 · 2016 · ITAT

220

citing judgments

Before revising an assessment order under Section 263, the CIT/PCIT must conduct their own inquiries or verifications to establish that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, rather than merely directing further inquiry or pointing out the AO's lack of inquiry.

Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT

1 SCC 139 · 1980 · Supreme Court

214

citing judgments

The cardinal principle of tax law dictates that the law applicable to an assessment is the law in force for the relevant assessment year, unless the statute expressly or implicitly provides otherwise. A clarificatory statutory explanation must be read into the main provision from its inception.

CIT v. Govindbhai Mamaiya

91 Taxmann.com 20 · 2018 · Supreme Court

205

citing judgments

Interest on enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the compensation, not merely interest income, and is exigible to tax on a receipt basis.

Judgments on Section 10(37)

Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Dudhagara, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 738/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 738/Rjt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Income Tax Officer Dudhagara, It-Office, New Aayakar बनाम/ 3/4,Sardar Soc Corner, Vs. Bhawan, Vatiaka, Rajkot, Nr.Rameshwar Wadi, Nehrunagar Ito Ward 3(1)(1), Rajkot, Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-361012 Rajkot, Gujarat-361012 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bzbpd2158R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Pravin Sinha, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am : Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.07.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Dated 22.11.2019. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly. The Ld. Counsel Adverted Our Attention To The Affidavit Filed In This Regard Citing Reasons For Condonation Of Delay & Urged For A Benign View

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Sinha, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 56

Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Dudhagara, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 738/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Sinha, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 56

Naresh Kumar, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. PCIT, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumarnaresh Kumar, Vs. Pcit Village Sikanderpur Jaipur (Badha), Vpo Sikanderpur, Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Aabtb 7344 K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar (Thru V.C.) Respondent By : Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit Date Of Hearing 08.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:- The Present Appeal Was Originally Heard By The Division Bench Consisting Of Hon’Ble, Sh. Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai & Hon’Ble, Sh. Narinder Kumar. On Account Of A Difference Of Opinion Between The Hon’Ble Members On P A G E | 2 Naresh Kumar Certain Issues Arising In The Appeal, The Following Point(S) Of Difference Were Framed & Referred To The Hon’Bleof The Tribunal Under Section 255(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). “Whether Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case When The Ld. Ao Has Verified The Issue Of Chargeability Of Interest In Hands Of The Assessee & Taken A Plausible View. Whether That View Taken By The Ld. Ao Which Is One Of The Plausible View Can Be Subjected To Revision As Per Provision Of Section 263 Of The Act Or Not”

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar (thru V.C.)For Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145B(1)Section 255(4)Section 263Section 28Section 57

Sudhakar Purushottam Bhalerao, Osmanabad vs. ITO Ward 1, Latur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2882/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21 Sudhakar Purushottam Bhalerao, Ito, Ward-1, Latur At Donja, Post Donja, Donja B.O., Donja, Osmanabad-413505 Vs. Pan : Bampb0266Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate

Section 10(37)Section 144BSection 145B(1)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Kumar Satish, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6552/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Kumar Satish, Vs. Income Tax Officer, V.P.O. Basai, Ward-2(2), Distt. Gurgaon, Gurugram Haryana Pan: Blvps8413G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 28

Rakesh, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5707/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: CDVPR6722G

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Sandeep, Sonipat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Sonipat

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

ITA 2392/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmansandeep, Vs. Ito, Ward 1, Village Badhkhalsa, Sonipat. Ps Rai, Sonipat – 131 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ajmpr1910R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Jain, Advocate Shri Samyak Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2026 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 08.01.2026 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Not Filed Its Return Of Income. Based On The Above, Assessment Was Reopened. Based On The Information Available On Aims Module, The Assessee Has Received Cash Of 2 Rs.35,33,013/- On Account Of Interest Under Section 194A Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Accordingly Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued & Served On The Assessee. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income As Required Under Section 148 Of The Act On 30.10.2021 Electronically Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,03,687/-. Accordingly Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. During Assessment Proceedings, Ao Observed That Assessee Has Received Enhanced Interest Income From Land Acquisition Officer Of An Amount Of Rs.36,33,013/- On Which Tds Under Section 194A Was Deducted. He Observed That Assessee Has Claimed The Same As Exempt Income In Its Return Of Income. When The Details Were Called For, Assessee Has Submitted As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 28Section 34

Rabindra Narayan Bhattacharjee, Amdiha vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)/Purulia, Purulia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1773/KOL/2026[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rabindra Narayan Ito, Ward 3(2), Purulia Bhattacharjee Income Tax Office, South Lake Purulia-I, Purulia, Purulia, West Road, Purulia, Purulia-723101, Vs. Bengal-723102 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alkpb8952D Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dipu Koley, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2026

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dipu Koley, DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 194Section 2(14)Section 46Section 96

Kishorbhai Nathabhai Makani, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(1) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/RJT/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.701/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 ] Kishorbhai Nathabhai Makani, Income Tax Officer, At-Charan Samadhiyala, Ward 1(2)(1) Rajkot, Vs. Ta-Jetpur, Dist-Rajkot, It-Office, New Aayakar Bhawan, Gujarat-360370 Vatiaka, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Avlpm4415B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2026 10/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 20.03.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 15.12.2018. Kishorbhai Nathabhai Makani

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

Shallender Rathee, Jhajjar vs. Ward 2 Rohtak, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7651/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Shallender Rathee Vs. Ito, Ward 2 10/402 Jatwara Mohalla 8 Zila Parishad Building Biswa, Bahapurgarh Rohtak, Jhajjar, Haryana – 214507 Haryana - 124001 Pan: Amopr7583B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Shantaben Ganpatbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 4(4), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed to the extent of the observation made hereinabove

ITA 1283/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyanishantaben Ganpatbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Mata Faliya, At Post Hazira, Ward - 4(4), Tal-Choryasi, Hazira Room No.219, Vs. Surat Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat Pan: Cmtpp5526M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2026

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

Pace Buildcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. Ward 19(3), Delhi

ITA 7538/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Mahavir Singh & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(vii)

Pareshkumar Rameshchandra Patel, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

ITA 11/SRT/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Esmayeel Saherwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Birbal Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 418/CHANDI/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Vijay Varmaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 418/Chd/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Birbal Kumar, The Ito, Village-Manakpur, Vs Ward 1, Tehsil-Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bfapk3162F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vibhor Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2026 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 147Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Jaspal Singh, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 514/CHANDI/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Aug 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Vijay Varmaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 514/Chd/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Jaspalsingh, The Ito-Cum-Jo, Vpo Devinagar, Vs Ward – 1, Panchkula. Sector 3, Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Crbps2297D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Navdeep Monga, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2026 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Navdeep Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145ASection 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Hemant Godara Legal Heir Rohtash Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 43(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6397/DEL/2026[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Deputy Hemant Godara Commissioner Of Legal Heir Rohtash Singh, Income Tax C/O Sumer Garg & Co. Circle- 43(1), Chartered Accountant, 17Th Floor, Civic Centre, Jln 501A, Block-E, Itl Towers, Marg, New Delhi- 02 A-09, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi- 34, Delhi-34 Pan: Bevps1272Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S. C. Garg, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Shafiullah Siddiqui, Azamgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Azamgarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/VNS/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi21 Aug 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shafiullah Siddiqui V. The Income Tax Officer 108-A, Sadawari Ward 3(2) Athwariya Sadar Azamgarh Azamgarh (U.P) Tan/Pan:Hqdps8899M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sudipta Paul, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-11, Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of The Information That During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Amounting To Rs.16,00,000/- In His Saving Bank Account. The Ao Initiated Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act’) Upon Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act, No Return Of Income Was, However, Filed By The Assessee. However, He

For Respondent: Shri Sudipta Paul, D.R

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Venkata Siddi Raju Subramanyam Raju Konduru, Tiruvallur vs. ACIT, Kanchipuram Circle, Kanchipuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/CHNY/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 767/Chny/2026 िनधा$रणवष$/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Venkata Siddi Raju Subramanyam Raju Vs. Acit, Konduru, Kanchipuram Circle, No.1, Goonipalayam Village, No.96, M.M. Avenue, Uthukottai, Ii Cross Street, Tiruvallur – 602 026. Kanchipuram – 602 026. [Pan: Bhypk-1104-P] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()थ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ'कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate ()थ'कीओरसे/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Cit : सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Joginder Kumar Taneja, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 50(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6494/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Joginder Kumar Taneja, 108-109, Parmesh Business Ward 50(1), Centre-1, Plot No. 20, Income Tax Department, Community Centre Civic Centre, Minto Road, Karkardooma, Delhi-92 New Delhi- 02 Pan: Aaspk6590P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Sunil Kumar, Noida vs. Ward 5(2)(4), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6828/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sunil Kumar, Village-Sk-1, Gejha, Ward 5(2)(4), Range Code- Maharshi Nagar, Sector- 93, 104, Income Tax Department, Noida- 201304, New Delhi- 110002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Bklps1289M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Sanchita Jain & Sh. Rajat Gupta & Ms. Kanika Mittal, Advocates Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.08.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074717352(1), Dated 19.03.202 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 387 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc).

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)