← All Phrases

“Section 144(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)73 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 144(1)(b) is CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614), cited in 659 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 144(1)(b)

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT
35 Taxmann.com 335 · 2013 · ITAT
322
citing judgments

The discount arising from the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is an ascertained liability, not a contingent one, and constitutes a revenue expense rather than a capital expense.

Brij Bhushan Lal Paraduman Kumar v. CIT
115 ITR 524 · 1978 · Supreme Court
113
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that an Assessing Officer, when making a best judgment assessment or estimating income, must act fairly, honestly, and rationally, basing the estimation on available material and avoiding arbitrary or capricious decisions. Adherence to natural justice principles is crucial during assessment proceedings.

Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT
260 ITR 102 · 2003 · High Court
74
citing judgments

Under the mercantile system of accounting, revenue and expenses are matched on an accrual basis, comparing income earned and expenses incurred irrespective of cash flow. If the Department seeks to substitute an assessee's chosen method of accounting, the burden is on the Department to prove that the existing method is incorrect or distorts profits.

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.

Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy
12 SCC 693 · 2012 · Reported
47
citing judgments

When considering an application for condonation of delay, courts must adopt a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach, understanding 'sufficient cause' in its proper spirit to serve the ends of justice and avoid legalizing injustice.

Bansilal B. Raisoni & Sons. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
101 Taxmann.com 20 · 2019 · High Court
46
citing judgments

The time limit for objecting to an Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction under Section 124(3) does not apply when an assessee claims the officer acted wholly without jurisdiction or outside the authority of law. Objections to jurisdiction not relating to territorial matters are not subject to these time limits.

Sudhir Kumar Shah (HUF) v. CIT-III, Ludhiana)
224 Taxmann 178 · 2014 · High Court
38
citing judgments

The addition of cash deposits to an assessee's income under Section 68 is justified when the Assessment Officer notices huge cash deposits, as the onus is on the assessee to explain their nature and source.

Judgments citing Section 144(1)(b)

Malkari Maheswari Bai, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-2, Kurnool

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

ITA 566/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, KA Sai Prasad And CA, P V Raghavendra KumarFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 144(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Bhavishaben Hareshbhai Rathod, Rajkot vs. Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 253/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.253/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bhavishaben Hareshbhai Rathod The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) बनाम Shop No. 7, Hairline Unisex Salon Rajkot Amin Marg, Gujarat Housing Board Vs. Rajkot Gujarat 360001 Pan : Aespr4119R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21/07/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Separate Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 27.02.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 144 Of The Act. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. That, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Order Passed Without Serving The Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Order Passed U/S 144(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Shri Bhavinshaben Hareshbhai Rathodi

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Bhavangkumar Bharatchandra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed

ITA 937/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shir Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbhavangkumar Bharatchandra Ito Ward-19(1)(2), Shah R. No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Matru 5801 B, Trump Tower, Lodha Park, Vs. Mandir, Tardeo Road, P. B. Marg, Worli, Mumbai -400 001 Maharashtra-400 007 Pan: Aafps5973F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHIR OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Krishan Kumar Makrania Pro. M/S. Makrania Oil Mill, Bhiwani vs. DCIT Central Circle-I, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3214/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & AnkitFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

1 Krishna Kumar Makrania IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Income Tax Officer(E)-2(2), Mumbai vs. Peoples Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3964/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Jane Varghese, Ld. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 250

comply with the terms of notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and therefore by taking refuge of the provisions of section 144(1)(b) of the Act, the AO proceeded with the completion of assessment as “best judgment assessment”. However, before proceeding further, he issued a final show

Haresh J. Rathod, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 115/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Haresh J Rathod Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम Shop No. 7 Hairline Unisex No.2(1)(2), Rajkot, T-Office, Vs. Salon, Amin Marg, Gujarat New Aayakar Bhawan, Housing Board, Rajkot-360 Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Abxpr 2350 L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr- DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

ITA No.115/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 17-18 Haresh J.Rathod 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Late Vasantben Chandrakantbhai Raval L/H. Dushyantkumar C. Raval, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (2) (6), Rajkot

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

ITA 203/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.203/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dushyankumar C. Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(6), Legal Heir Of Late Vasantben बनाम/ Rajkot, Income Tax Office, New Chandrakantbhai Raval Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Vatiaka, Rajkot- 45 B Panchawati, Street No.1, 360 001 Rajkot-360 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqqpr 1046 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hitesh Doriya, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Doriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 144(1)(b)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL

Varsha Girishkumar Pipalava, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

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

ITA 823/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.823/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2017-18) Varsha Girishkumar Pipalava, Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम Shivam Street No.3, Chitrakut 1(1)(5), Rajkot Dham Akshar Marg, Rajkot-360 Vs. 001 Pan/Gir No.Cicpp 9452K "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

ITA No.823/Rjt/2024 (AY-17-18) Varsha G Pipalava 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Income Tax Officer, Barabanki vs. Sateesh Kumar, Barabanki

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sateesh Kumar, Barabanki, U.P. H. No.9, Bhitariya, Ramsanehighat, H/O Baneekodar, Barabanki, U.P. Pan:Ctjpk3341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 13.03.2004 Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assesseee Against The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 24.09.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. Because On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts While Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 77,96,530/- Under Section 69A Of The I.T Act 1961 By Suo-Moto Taking The Bank Deposits As Turnover & Estimating The Profit @ 8% Of Rs. 95,83,320/- Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Complete Details Of Bank Deposits, The Same Is Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The I.T. Act. 1961. 2. That The Order Of Cit (A), Being Erroneous In Law & In Facts Be Cancelled & The Order Of The Ao Be Restored. 3. Any Other Grounds Arose During The Proceedings Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)(b)Section 44ASection 69A

even filed his ITR for the assessment year 2017-18 despite issue of notices to him for the said purposes. Therefore, quoting from section 144(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the ld. AO held that, as the assessee had failed to furnish the income tax return ... response to his notices under section 142(1) and to furnish details regarding his income, the provisions of section 144(1)(b) were being invoked to complete the proceedings as a best judgment assessment, after affording the assessee an opportunity with a show cause notice. The ld. AO pointed

Shri Harish Chandra, Nainital vs. ITO, Nainital

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

ITA 9/DDN/2024[2017-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2017-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Harish Chandra, Vs. Ao, 48, Thapla, Malital, Nainital, Ward-2(3)(1), Uttarakhand- 263 001 Nainital (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ayypc4939Q Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, JCIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

represent cash deposits made during the demonetization period in Specified Bank Notes (SBN). Accordingly, the Learned AO issued show-cause notice under section 144(1)(b) of the Act to the Assessee as to why the assessment should not be completed based on the credits found in the bank account

Boogie Woogie Computer Center, Mihijam vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Asansol

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

ITA 818/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 818/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Boogie Woogie Computer Center,…..…...……Appellant Boogie Woogie Main Road, Mihijam, P.O. Mihijam, Jharkhand, Pin Code 815354 [Pan:Aapfb0339J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-1(2), Asansol, Income Tax Office, Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Road, Asansol-713305, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Ananda Sen, Advocate & Shri Sabyasachi Mondal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 18, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274Section 69A

file the return of income inspite of service of notices. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny under section 144(1)(b) of the Act and accordingly notice under section 142(1) alongwith the questionnaire was issued and served on the assessee on 12.07.2019 for furnishing

Nanda Filling Station, Sirhind vs. ITO, Ward, Sirhind

ITA 547/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Singh Sarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 144(1)(b)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

That on basis of information about deposit of Rs.1,24,20,000/- in this account, the ld. AO completed the assessment proceedings under Section 144(1)(b) of the Act and has made addition of Rs.1,24,20,000/- to the income of the firm. 2.4 No notice ... dated 01.12.2019 was/were ever delivered to the firm or to the surviving partner. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings ex-parte under Section 144(1)(b) of the Act. ITA 547/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 4 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 01.12.2019 preferred first

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Mahendra Misrimalji Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3992/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit Vs. Mahendra Misrimalji 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Shah, Room No. 28, 2Nd Chamber, Lalbaug, Floor, Lehari Building Mumbai- 400012 Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai - 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Bjdps7198J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

section (1) of section 142 has been issued prior to the making of an assessment under this section. 5.3. As per provisions of Section 144(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961, if the assessee fails to comply with terms of a notice issued u/s 142(1), the Assessing Officer

Govindbhai Atmaram Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1629/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

under Section 139 or in response to notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis of Section 144(1)(b) and made addition of Rs. 18,01,075/- under Section 69A as unexplained money and addition of Rs. 84,441/- as income from

Shree Kaleshwar Tours and Travels, Diva Manpada Road vs. Prabhakar Ward3(3), Thane, Wagle Industrial Estate

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

ITA 3550/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

order at para no. 8.1.3 to 8.3.3 held as under:- 8.1.3 In view of the provisions of Section 144(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and for failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2017.18 in response to notice

Kapil Dev, Chandigarh Road Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Ludhiana

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of A Second Appeal As Provided For In The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01.04.2016 To 31.03.2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Bearing No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1063400827(1) Dated 26.03.2024 Passed In First Appeal Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order” U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 127Section 139Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 69A

offer to support his claims. The ld. AO, therefore, proceeded to decide the case basis above facts and position by resorting to Section 144(1)(b) of the Act as there was no other option left but to complete assessment proceedings as ex-parte. 18. The ld. AO has thus

Sitarama Raju Penumatsa, Jarajapeta vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 183/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sitarama Raju Penumatsa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-363-1443, Santhoshimatha Ward-2, Nagar, Jarajapeta, Nellimarla, Vizianagaram. Vizianagaram District-535217, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Awfpp2521A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

observed that the assessee made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 31,69,500/- during demonetization period. Accordingly, in view of the provisions of section 144(1)(b) of the Act and considering the assessee’s failure to furnish the return of income for the AY 2017-18 in response

Kennedy Educational Society, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

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

ITA 9/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 9/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kennedy Educational Society V. Asst. Cit Sirinagar, Mahatma Gandhi Road Office Of The Asst. Cit, Exemption Circle Vijayawada Vijayawada – 520007 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaatk6185E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)

record and information gathered from the bank under section 133(6) of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore completed the assessment under section 144(1)(b) r.w.s. 142(1) of the Act by making the following additions: - a. Cash deposits made before and after demonetization period as the income from

Smt. Anisha Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 218/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 10Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Purama Ramakrishna Rao, Saluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.221/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Purama Ramakrishna Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Saluru, Vizianagaram Dist., Ward-2, Andhra Pradesh. Vizianagaram. Pan: Altpp40003E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 271FSection 3Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीयअिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम SMC पीठ, िवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM SMC BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल