Trib.). 3. Rajendra Pal Verma (supra). 4. ITO v. Nilima Abhijit Tannu

106 Taxmann.com 256Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#16357 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Also reported as

177 ITD 308

Sections most often in play

Section 136 Section 139 Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234A Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 139(5)section 139(1)section 139 section 13 prescribed person section 143(3)total income

Judgments citing Trib.). 3. Rajendra Pal Verma (supra). 4. ITO v. Nilima Abhijit Tannu

AVINASH S SADAMATE, ACIT, CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RASHMI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Revenue's appeal and Cross\nObjection are dismissed

ITA 6605/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: \nShri Madhur Agrawal / Jay Bhansali, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 801B(10)(c)

…nd Developers / I.T.A no 7010/Mum/2010,\ndated-27/01/2016 (ITAT)(Mum), DIC Fine Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT,\nCircle- 11(1), [2019] 177 ITD 672 (Kolkata -Trib.),Rajendra Pal Verma, v.\nACIT (2019) 176 ITD 211 (Mum) (Trib.),ITO v. Nilima Abhijit Tannu.\n(2019) 177 ITD 308 (Mum) (Trib.) etc.\n9.2 Therefore, in the background of above decisions and facts of\nthe case, the denial of claim of deduction of the assessee made through\nrevised return of income during the course of assessment proceedings\nand well before the passing of assessment order, is not tenable in the eye\nof law. Further, it has been not disputed b…

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 PAN No. ARAPS0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. AR (Through V.C.) &Mr. Devang Gargieya, Adv., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 04/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 06/03/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed ag…

DHARMISTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. PAN: AAFPM5272R ...... Appellant Vs. ITO-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent by : Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 18/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 12/10/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commis…

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 387/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: ShriTej Shah, ARFor Respondent: ShriL. P. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also not.”” Apart from that we have carefully considered the judgment passed in the matter of ITO vs. Nilima Abhijit Tannu passed by the ITAT, Mumbai Benches, reported in [2019] 106 Taxmann.com 256 (Mumbai – Trib.) where the same issue has cropped up and it was observed that when the unutilized portion of capital gain on sale of capital asset is required to be deposited before the date of furnishing of return of tax under Section 139, in such a situation Section 139 cannot be meant only Section 139 but it means all sub-Sections of S…

ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 2 (2),, CHENNAI vs. SMT. REKHA SHETTY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2777/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S.Jayaraman & C.O. No.106/Chny/2019 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vijaya Prabha,Addl.CIT,D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND C.O. No.106/Chny/2019 Assessment year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Rekha Shetty, O/o Corporate Ward – 2(2), No. 359,North Main Road, 5th Room No.514, floor, Anna Nagar West, Wanaparthy Block,121,M G Road, Chennai 600 101. Chennai. [ PAN AAHPR 3883 R] (Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Revenue by : Ms. Vijaya Prabha,Addl.CIT,D.R A…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

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

ITA 1794/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1794/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Vishram Developers, 61B/11, Zelum Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aagfv0995F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak SasarFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 80ASection 80I

…date of furnishing return of tax under section 139, in such a situation, section 139 cannot be meant only section 139(1), but it means all sub-sections of section 139 - Held, yes - [Paras 14 and 15] [In favour of assessee] ITO v. Nilima Abhijit Tannu. (2019) 177 ITD 308 (Mum) (Trib.) 7. Revised Form no 10CCB - Filed during the Assessment proceeding. 1. The A.O rejected the revised return on of the ground that the form no 10CCB is not properly filed. The same is corrected and filed before A.O during the Assessment proceeding. [ pg no. 71-76] 2. The A.O could not disallowed deduction u/s 80IB(10) merely on the gro…