“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

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

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

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

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

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)

Kunderu Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Kunderu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.219/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Kunderu Primary Agricultural Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-2(4) D.No.3068, Kunderu, Vijayawada Kankipadu Mandal Krishna Dist [Pan : Aabat0643G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)(b)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम “SMC” पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी

The Indian Missionary Movement, Kawardha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kawardha, Kawardha

In the result appeal for the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations

ITA 199/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 199/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain & R.B. Doshi, CA’sFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 253(5)Section 69A

failure on the part of assessee has led the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment under (best judgment assessment) within the provision of section 144(1)(b), on the basis of available material in the form of bank statement of the assessee obtained by issuing notices

Abjayoni Trading Private Limited, Thane vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2514/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabjayoni Trading Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit. Cc – 2(2), 12 Vasant Heights, Bldg 8Th Floor, Pratishtha 74, Shanti Park, Bhavan, Mira Road (E), M.K.Road, Thane-4011107, Mumbai-400020. Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. : Aajca2177N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla.ARFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Abjayoni Trading Pvt Ltd

M/S Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti, Maryadit, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Korba

In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 50/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 50/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Korba, Korba P.O, Chhattisgarh-495 677 Pan : Aadaa9825F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

The Omkar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Belagavi

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms

ITA 84/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 84/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Omkar Urban Co-Op. Cr. Society Ltd. A/P. : Kangral (Bk.), Belagavi. Pan: Aaaat3508P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr N. Shrikanth [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 68Section 80ASection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI

Ruth Mamidi, West Godavari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.03/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mrs. Ruth Mamidi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 3-45 Ananthapalli, Ward-1, Ramalayam Veedhi, Nallajerla Tadepalligudem, Mandal, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Andhra Pradesh – 534111. Pan: Cxmpm 2888 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 17/07/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

furnish the information and explanation with evidence with respect to the cash deposits made, the Ld. AO invoked the provisions of section 144(1)(b) of the Act and completed the assessment proceedings ex-parte and passed the assessment order U/s. 144 of the Act dated 19/12/2019. In the assessment

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

Pacific Crest Pte Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT Circle-2(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 661/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115ASection 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 195Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)

Ultimately, the Assessing Officer issued a show- 2 | P a g e AY: 2012-13 cause notice to the assessee in terms of section 144(1)(b) of the Act calling upon the assessee to explain why the assessment should not be completed to the best of judgment under section

Sridevi Vuyyuru, Hyder vs. ITO Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

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

ITA 575/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

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

short “the Act”). Assessee, however, did not file any return of income. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, took up proceeding under section 144(1)(b) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceeding, on the basis of AIR information made available by the banks, pursuant to the notice issued under

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 7610/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

ITA No. 7610/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 7 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram