Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT

205 ITD 31Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2024#5239 most cited
23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Also reported as

157 Taxmann.com 705110 ITR 609228 TTJ 165

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 282a(1)section 141section 148a(c)section 194lasection 282asection 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)approval under section 151section 10(37)

Judgments citing Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he PCIT not being signed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act initiating reassessment proceedings against the assessee is found to be invalid, bad in law, arbitrary and illegal, having no legal foundation and thus quashed. Ordered accordingly.” vii) 205 ITD 31 (Mum) Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT viii) dated 3.7.2025 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. The requirement of signature on the notice or document issued is not merely formality but is a mandatory requirement and if such notice or document is issued in paper form, the signature shall be done manually and if the notice or document is issue…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he PCIT not being signed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act initiating reassessment proceedings against the assessee is found to be invalid, bad in law, arbitrary and illegal, having no legal foundation and thus quashed. Ordered accordingly.” vii) 205 ITD 31 (Mum) Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT viii) dated 3.7.2025 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. The requirement of signature on the notice or document issued is not merely formality but is a mandatory requirement and if such notice or document is issued in paper form, the signature shall be done manually and if the notice or document is issue…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he PCIT not being signed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act initiating reassessment proceedings against the assessee is found to be invalid, bad in law, arbitrary and illegal, having no legal foundation and thus quashed. Ordered accordingly.” vii) 205 ITD 31 (Mum) Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT viii) dated 3.7.2025 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. The requirement of signature on the notice or document issued is not merely formality but is a mandatory requirement and if such notice or document is issued in paper form, the signature shall be done manually and if the notice or document is issue…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he PCIT not being signed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act initiating reassessment proceedings against the assessee is found to be invalid, bad in law, arbitrary and illegal, having no legal foundation and thus quashed. Ordered accordingly.” vii) 205 ITD 31 (Mum) Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT viii) dated 3.7.2025 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. The requirement of signature on the notice or document issued is not merely formality but is a mandatory requirement and if such notice or document is issued in paper form, the signature shall be done manually and if the notice or document is issue…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he PCIT not being signed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act initiating reassessment proceedings against the assessee is found to be invalid, bad in law, arbitrary and illegal, having no legal foundation and thus quashed. Ordered accordingly.” vii) 205 ITD 31 (Mum) Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT viii) dated 3.7.2025 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. The requirement of signature on the notice or document issued is not merely formality but is a mandatory requirement and if such notice or document is issued in paper form, the signature shall be done manually and if the notice or document is issue…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he PCIT not being signed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act initiating reassessment proceedings against the assessee is found to be invalid, bad in law, arbitrary and illegal, having no legal foundation and thus quashed. Ordered accordingly.” vii) 205 ITD 31 (Mum) Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT viii) dated 3.7.2025 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. The requirement of signature on the notice or document issued is not merely formality but is a mandatory requirement and if such notice or document is issued in paper form, the signature shall be done manually and if the notice or document is issue…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he PCIT not being signed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act initiating reassessment proceedings against the assessee is found to be invalid, bad in law, arbitrary and illegal, having no legal foundation and thus quashed. Ordered accordingly.” vii) 205 ITD 31 (Mum) Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT viii) dated 3.7.2025 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. The requirement of signature on the notice or document issued is not merely formality but is a mandatory requirement and if such notice or document is issued in paper form, the signature shall be done manually and if the notice or document is issue…

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25 , DELHI

ITA 2309/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…when it is signed by him….” (Emphasis Supplied). Hon’ble Supreme court decision in case of Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta(1996) 219 ITR 214 is also relied. Then reliance is placed on Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 205 ITD 31/ 228 TTJ 165/110 ITR 609 (Mum)(Trib), where in it was held that signing of an assessment order by Assessing Officer is a mandatory and not curable procedural defect. Then reliance was placed on Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs ITO in WP No 9835/2022 order dated 09.01.2023 (451 ITR 27) the Hon’ble Court…

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, DELHI

ITA 2308/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…when it is signed by him….” (Emphasis Supplied). Hon’ble Supreme court decision in case of Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta(1996) 219 ITR 214 is also relied. Then reliance is placed on Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 205 ITD 31/ 228 TTJ 165/110 ITR 609 (Mum)(Trib), where in it was held that signing of an assessment order by Assessing Officer is a mandatory and not curable procedural defect. Then reliance was placed on Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs ITO in WP No 9835/2022 order dated 09.01.2023 (451 ITR 27) the Hon’ble Court…

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI

ITA 2306/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…when it is signed by him….” (Emphasis Supplied). Hon’ble Supreme court decision in case of Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta(1996) 219 ITR 214 is also relied. Then reliance is placed on Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 205 ITD 31/ 228 TTJ 165/110 ITR 609 (Mum)(Trib), where in it was held that signing of an assessment order by Assessing Officer is a mandatory and not curable procedural defect. Then reliance was placed on Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs ITO in WP No 9835/2022 order dated 09.01.2023 (451 ITR 27) the Hon’ble Court…

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, DELHI

ITA 2305/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

…when it is signed by him….” (Emphasis Supplied). Hon’ble Supreme court decision in case of Kilasho Devi Burman v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B., Calcutta(1996) 219 ITR 214 is also relied. Then reliance is placed on Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 205 ITD 31/ 228 TTJ 165/110 ITR 609 (Mum)(Trib), where in it was held that signing of an assessment order by Assessing Officer is a mandatory and not curable procedural defect. Then reliance was placed on Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs ITO in WP No 9835/2022 order dated 09.01.2023 (451 ITR 27) the Hon’ble Court…

KONDA DEVASENAMMA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 2603/BANG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 282ASection 282A(1)Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Konda Devasenamma, Ward – 5(1)(1), # 518, CMH Road, Indiranagar – 560 038. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560 095. PAN – AAKPW 6634 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2016-17 Konda Devasenamma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, # 518, CMH Road, Ward – 5(1)(1), Indiranagar – 560 038. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 095. PAN – AAKPW 6634 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S Annamalai, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusam…

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -5(1)(1) , BENGALURU vs. KONDA DEVASENAMMA , BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 1239/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 282ASection 282A(1)Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Konda Devasenamma, Ward – 5(1)(1), # 518, CMH Road, Indiranagar – 560 038. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560 095. PAN – AAKPW 6634 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2016-17 Konda Devasenamma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, # 518, CMH Road, Ward – 5(1)(1), Indiranagar – 560 038. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 095. PAN – AAKPW 6634 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S Annamalai, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusam…

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 754/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 - 2019-20 Shri Gopal Shashidhara, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of 2, Narayanappa Layout, Income Tax, Sultanpalya Main Road, Central Circle – 1(4), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, RT Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 032. PAN – BXUPS 2818 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur Pai Dhungat - Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.…

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 753/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 - 2019-20 Shri Gopal Shashidhara, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of 2, Narayanappa Layout, Income Tax, Sultanpalya Main Road, Central Circle – 1(4), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, RT Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 032. PAN – BXUPS 2818 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur Pai Dhungat - Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.…

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 752/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 - 2019-20 Shri Gopal Shashidhara, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of 2, Narayanappa Layout, Income Tax, Sultanpalya Main Road, Central Circle – 1(4), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, RT Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 032. PAN – BXUPS 2818 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur Pai Dhungat - Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.…

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 750/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 - 2019-20 Shri Gopal Shashidhara, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of 2, Narayanappa Layout, Income Tax, Sultanpalya Main Road, Central Circle – 1(4), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, RT Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 032. PAN – BXUPS 2818 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur Pai Dhungat - Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.…

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALAORE

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

ITA 749/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 - 2019-20 Shri Gopal Shashidhara, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of 2, Narayanappa Layout, Income Tax, Sultanpalya Main Road, Central Circle – 1(4), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, RT Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 032. PAN – BXUPS 2818 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur Pai Dhungat - Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.…

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 748/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur PaiFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 - 2019-20 Shri Gopal Shashidhara, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of 2, Narayanappa Layout, Income Tax, Sultanpalya Main Road, Central Circle – 1(4), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, RT Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 032. PAN – BXUPS 2818 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.S Balachandran and Shri Ankur Pai Dhungat - Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.…

HIRABAI & HORMUSJI JIWANIVAKIL MODEL SCHOOL TRUST,DAHANU ROAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , EXEMPTION WARD, THANE, THANE

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

ITA 4137/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.4137/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-2017) Hirabai & Hormusji V/S. Income Tax Officer, Jiwanivakil Model बिाम Exemption Ward, Thane School Trust Income Tax Officer, Near Chandra Takies, Exemption Ward, Thane Masoli, Dahanu Road, 400604 Palghar 401602 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaath1536J Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.04.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. “1. It Is Submitted That The Order Imposing Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-Dated 28.06.2019 [Itba/Pnl/7271(1)(B)/2019-20/1016563977(1)] Is Bad In Law & Is Required To Be Held As Illegal As The Penalty Order Is Under The Signature Of Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ito Exemption Ward, Thane. However, The Demand Notice Has Been Issued On 27.06.2019 By Mr. Prashant Singh, Ito Exemption Ward, Thane, I.E. One Day Prior To The Issue

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CA (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 156Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No.4137/MUM/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-2017) Hirabai & Hormusji v/s. Income Tax Officer, Jiwanivakil Model बिाम Exemption Ward, Thane School Trust Income Tax Officer, Near Chandra Takies, Exemption Ward, Thane Masoli, Dahanu Road, 400604 Palghar 401602 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./PAN/GIR No: AAATH1536J Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee by: Shri Piyush Bafna, CA (Virtu…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2