← 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)

Janani Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Surat

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 401/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

short ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] which is in turn arise out of separate penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) / 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, we note that appeals filed ... held by the assessing officer that due to failure on part of the assessee to comply with statutory notices issued, the penalty under section 271(1)(b) shall be levied in the case of assessee. In view of the above, the assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(b

Janani Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Surat

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 400/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

short ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] which is in turn arise out of separate penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) / 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, we note that appeals filed ... held by the assessing officer that due to failure on part of the assessee to comply with statutory notices issued, the penalty under section 271(1)(b) shall be levied in the case of assessee. In view of the above, the assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(b

Janani Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Surat

In the result, all seven appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 399/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

short ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] which is in turn arise out of separate penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) / 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, we note that appeals filed ... held by the assessing officer that due to failure on part of the assessee to comply with statutory notices issued, the penalty under section 271(1)(b) shall be levied in the case of assessee. In view of the above, the assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(b

Shri Chutra Ram Choudhary, Barmer vs. Dc, Cen Cir-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 44/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary
Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 142(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P

Shri Prakash Modi, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 25/JODH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteprakash Chand Modi Vs. Acit, Cir-1, D-128, Shastrinagar, Jodhpur, Jodhpur-342003, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Rpan/Gir No. : Adqpm6554J Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

facts and is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 2. The Id. CIT(A), has erred in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(b) amounting Rs 10,000 which is bad in law and bad on facts. Prakash Chand Modi. Jodhpur. 4 The appellant craves leave to add, alter

Shri Gopal Goushala, Barmer vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/JODH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2016-17 Sh. Gopal Goushala, Income Tax Officer, C/O D. Kansara & Associates, Vs (Exemption), Jodhpur Ca’S 84, Narpat Nagar, Opportunity Shyam Restourant Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj) 342001 Pan: Aaatg2071M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Gopal Goushala Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Jodhpur Dated 12.02.2020 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.That The Lower Authorities Erred In Computing/Sustaining The Assessment Made Ex Parte U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Lower Authorities Erred In Not Allowing Benefits Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act To The Trust Duly Registered U/S 12Aa. 3. That The Lower Authorities Erred In Framing Assessment In The Status Of Aop Instead Of Religious & Charitable Trust.” Sh. Gopal Goushala

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P

Usha Goyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 43(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1895/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Usha Goyal, Vs Acit, 134/135 Vaishali, Pitampura, Circle-43(1), New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aecpg5220J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Paritosh Jain, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2012

Manju Jain, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Meerut

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1875/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Shrinath Products, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is dismissed

ITA 51/JODH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Shrinath Products Vs. Ito. Ward 1(1), A.M.Mehta & Co, Udaipur, 6-B, Bapu Bazar, Rajasthan. Udaipur.-313001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfs9840Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair. Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-1,Udaipur Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax (Act), 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair. JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P

Dilipkumar Shi vs. Hankar Acharya, Suratvs.the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 331/SRT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 325 To 331/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Dilipkumar Shivshankar D.C.I.T., Acharya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 502, Siddhi Vinayak Paredise, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Smc Child Holl, Adajan, Majura Gate Surat. Surat-395009. Pan No. Acqpa 1053 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

conflicting ITA 325 to 331/Srt/2023 Dilipkumar Shivshankar Acharya Vs DCIT decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b)/271(b) and/or 272A1(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... DCIT reference in the assessment about any default in response of any show cause notice or about the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(b). 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 25.03.2021. The assessing

Dilipkumar Shi vs. Hankar Acharya, Suratvs.the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 330/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 325 To 331/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Dilipkumar Shivshankar D.C.I.T., Acharya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 502, Siddhi Vinayak Paredise, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Smc Child Holl, Adajan, Majura Gate Surat. Surat-395009. Pan No. Acqpa 1053 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

conflicting ITA 325 to 331/Srt/2023 Dilipkumar Shivshankar Acharya Vs DCIT decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b)/271(b) and/or 272A1(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... DCIT reference in the assessment about any default in response of any show cause notice or about the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(b). 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 25.03.2021. The assessing

Dilipkumar Shi vs. Hankar Acharya, Suratvs.the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 329/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 325 To 331/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Dilipkumar Shivshankar D.C.I.T., Acharya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 502, Siddhi Vinayak Paredise, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Smc Child Holl, Adajan, Majura Gate Surat. Surat-395009. Pan No. Acqpa 1053 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

conflicting ITA 325 to 331/Srt/2023 Dilipkumar Shivshankar Acharya Vs DCIT decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b)/271(b) and/or 272A1(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... DCIT reference in the assessment about any default in response of any show cause notice or about the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(b). 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 25.03.2021. The assessing

Dilipkumar Shi vs. Hankar Acharya, Suratvs.the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 328/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 325 To 331/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Dilipkumar Shivshankar D.C.I.T., Acharya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 502, Siddhi Vinayak Paredise, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Smc Child Holl, Adajan, Majura Gate Surat. Surat-395009. Pan No. Acqpa 1053 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

conflicting ITA 325 to 331/Srt/2023 Dilipkumar Shivshankar Acharya Vs DCIT decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b)/271(b) and/or 272A1(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... DCIT reference in the assessment about any default in response of any show cause notice or about the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(b). 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 25.03.2021. The assessing

Dilipkumar Shi vs. Hankar Acharya, Suratvs.the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 327/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 325 To 331/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Dilipkumar Shivshankar D.C.I.T., Acharya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 502, Siddhi Vinayak Paredise, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Smc Child Holl, Adajan, Majura Gate Surat. Surat-395009. Pan No. Acqpa 1053 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

conflicting ITA 325 to 331/Srt/2023 Dilipkumar Shivshankar Acharya Vs DCIT decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b)/271(b) and/or 272A1(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... DCIT reference in the assessment about any default in response of any show cause notice or about the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(b). 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 25.03.2021. The assessing

Dilipkumar Shi vs. Hankar Acharya, Suratvs.the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 326/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 325 To 331/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Dilipkumar Shivshankar D.C.I.T., Acharya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 502, Siddhi Vinayak Paredise, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Smc Child Holl, Adajan, Majura Gate Surat. Surat-395009. Pan No. Acqpa 1053 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

conflicting ITA 325 to 331/Srt/2023 Dilipkumar Shivshankar Acharya Vs DCIT decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b)/271(b) and/or 272A1(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... DCIT reference in the assessment about any default in response of any show cause notice or about the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(b). 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 25.03.2021. The assessing

Dilipkumar Shi vs. Hankar Acharya, Suratvs.the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 325/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 325 To 331/Srt/2023 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Dilipkumar Shivshankar D.C.I.T., Acharya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 502, Siddhi Vinayak Paredise, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Smc Child Holl, Adajan, Majura Gate Surat. Surat-395009. Pan No. Acqpa 1053 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

conflicting ITA 325 to 331/Srt/2023 Dilipkumar Shivshankar Acharya Vs DCIT decision. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b)/271(b) and/or 272A1(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). For appreciation of fact, the appeal ... DCIT reference in the assessment about any default in response of any show cause notice or about the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(b). 4. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- vide his order dated 25.03.2021. The assessing

Jasmine Contractors P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Jasmine Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward 1(3), Faridabad, Haryana Ipso Legal, H-35,1St Floor, Jangpura 121002 Extension, New Delhi 110014 Vs. Pan Aadcj 3067 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Shyam Sundar, Adv. For Revenue : Shri R.K Doi, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K Doi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Rivet Electricals P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

Appeal are allowed

ITA 775/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR

Neel Controls, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes, in the aforesaid terms

ITA 373/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 36(1)(iii)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISH, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

Neel Controls, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes, in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1227/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 36(1)(iii)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISH, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM