← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)1,252 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(b) is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), cited in 502 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b)

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.
228 ITR 463 · 1997 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma
331 ITR 211 · 2011 · High Court
104
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

Velu Palandar v. DCIT
83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court
94
citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT
220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court
84
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO
187 ITD 738 · 2021 · ITAT
58
citing judgments

The third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides a tolerance band of 10% between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, is retrospective. This curative and declaratory amendment applies from the date of the insertion of Section 50C.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa
133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT
5 DTR 429 · High Court
50
citing judgments

To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(b)

Mohd Zubair Asharafi, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 438/NAG/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member**

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

protective basis in the hands of Asad Mohd. Idris. Thus, it is a classic example of mechanical application of penalty provisions under section 271(1)(b) of the Act without analysing its true intent. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed under section 271(1)(b

Hetalkumar Bhupendrabhai Joshi, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 863/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 861 & 863/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hetalkumar Bhupendrabhai Joshi. Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), Vijay Villa, C/O, Kankrai L Mehta, Rajkot. 5-Mahavir Society Nirmala Road, Rajkot-360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agspj0840P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Shekhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

notice is absolute necessary. You are requested to note that incomplete compliance or non-compliance to this notice may attract penal provision of section 271(1)(b) of the IT. Act, 1961, which is 10,000/- for each default". 5. However, the assessee has not replied as per the records

Hetalkumar Bhupendrabhai Joshi, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 861/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 861 & 863/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hetalkumar Bhupendrabhai Joshi. Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), Vijay Villa, C/O, Kankrai L Mehta, Rajkot. 5-Mahavir Society Nirmala Road, Rajkot-360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agspj0840P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Shekhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

notice is absolute necessary. You are requested to note that incomplete compliance or non-compliance to this notice may attract penal provision of section 271(1)(b) of the IT. Act, 1961, which is 10,000/- for each default". 5. However, the assessee has not replied as per the records

Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2863/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार

Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2862/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार

Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2861/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार

Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2860/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 7/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 6/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 5/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 416/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 415/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 414/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 413/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 412/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY

Yashwant Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 4/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY

Ranjit Thakur, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 1121/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. L Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ

Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, Hatkanangle, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1427/PUN/2024[AY 13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1427/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Suchitra Shashikant Khavare, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post Shiroli Pulachi, S Ichalkaranji. Hatkanangle, Kolhapur – 416122. Pan: Aowpk8959A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Dated 17.05.2024 For A.Y.2013-14 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In, Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Thereby Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(B). The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Amend, Alter, Modify, Delete Or Add A New Ground Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative(Ld.Ar) For The Assessee Submitted That Assessee Had Discontinued Her Business Of Country Liquor In Earlier Years. Assessee Is Not Well-Versed With The Technology. The Assessee’S Erstwhile Tax Practitioner Had Mentioned His Email Address & Mobile Number In The Login Portal. Therefore, All The Notices Had Been To That Email Address, Therefore, Assessee Was Not Aware About The Notices Issued. Therefore, Assessee Could Not Comply The Notices. Hence, Ld.Ar Pleaded That Penalty May Be Dropped.

Section 142(1)Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], dated 17.05.2024 for A.Y.2013-14 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; emanating from penalty order under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case

Punam Vishnuraj Motwani, Mumbai vs. ITO-27(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5974/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Venugopa C. NairFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

Baldev Singh, Fatehabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Wards 1, Fatehbad

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 813/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Shri Ashok Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH