“Section 144(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 144Section 144(1)119 judgments

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 142/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Yash Dhariwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

required to be issued to the Assessee. He further submitted that the present assessments were framed under Section 144(1)(b) of the Act - on account of failure on the part of an Assessee to comply with all terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1 ... required to be issued to the Assessee. He further submitted that the present assessments were framed under Section 144(1)(b) of the Act - on account of failure on the part of an Assessee to comply with all terms of a notice issued under Section 142(1

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 141/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Yash Dhariwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Usman C/25, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai-490 011, Dist. Durg Pan: Aafpu9292H

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

M/S. HL MANDO ANAND INDIA PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2088/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2088/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xi)Section 144B(1)(xix)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 250Section 35

this case, the Department has combined the Show Cause Notice as is contemplated under Section 144B(11) with the procedure under Section 144(1)(xiv) of the IT Act. 10. The proceedings cannot be short circuited particularly when the provisions are categorical notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner may have

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. FARMSON PHARMACEUTICAL GUJARAT PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1835/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 144(1)Section 37Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

TUFEL,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD 4(4),GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 3293/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

filed more than 1 year 3 months late and in absence of explanation, the Assessing Officer relied upon the provisions of section 144(1)(b) of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The ld DR further distinguished the cases of \"PCIT Vs. Kamala Devi Sharma

SURESH JAT,BADNAWAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 693/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Jat, Ito, बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Associate Dhar. Vs. Dadi Dham, 24-25, Joy Building Colony, Old Aplasia, Indore. (Pan: Anopj2666E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 194HSection 250Section 253Section 69A

during the Page 6 of 20 Suresh Jat ITA No. 693/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2016-17 assessment proceedings. Hence the case completed as per the provision of section 144(1)(6). It is also recorded in the “Impugned Assessment Order” that “ it is evident and self explanatory that the assessee has intentionally not filed

HARNEK SINGH,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAHJAHANPUR

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

ITA 492/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Harnek Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Jaswant Nagar Shahjahanpur Narotha Hansram Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Hdgps6958R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Totaling To Rs.10,56,500/- In His Following Bank Accounts During The Demonetization Period (9.11.2016 To 30.12.2016):

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 69A

raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That since appellant's case is not falling in any of the three mandatory conditions of section 144(1) of the Act, hence assessment proceedings initiated u/s 144 of the Act and order passed under said section of the Act is illegal

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

ITA 342/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

PRADIP NAIK,GOA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 43, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1497/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pradip Naik Vs Ito Bungalow No.25, International Goa Housing Board, Taxation-2(2)(2) Behind Sai Service Station, New Delhi Bardex, North Goa-403521 Pan-Afvpn7030H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. (Through Vc) & Ms. Sakshi Goyal, Ca Respondent By Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.06.2022 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-43, [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 10054/2020-21 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 17.12.2019 U/S 144(1)/147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act. The Ao Had Information In His Possession That Assessee Had Made Deposits Of Inr 3,75,00,000/- In The Bank Account But Had Not Filed The Return Of Income Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 28.03.2019. Thereafter, Since The Assessee Had Not Participated In The Proceedings Nor Made Any Compliance, Ao Has Held That Investments Made In Mutual Funds Totaling To Inr 3,25,00,000/-, Source Of Which Remained Unexplained & Accordingly, Made The Addition Of Such Amount Made U/S 69B Of The Act.

Section 144Section 144(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69B

ITA No.1497/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “D” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

MADINA RASOOL SHAIK,GUNTUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, NARASARAOPET

ITA 422/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.422/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Madina Rasool Shaik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1, Pan: Ahfpr3787D Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 01/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 271ASection 69A

absence of any response by the assessee proceeded to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144(1)(b) of the Act. On a perusal of the record, the AO observed that 3 Madina Rasool Shaik vs. ITO the assessee during the subject year had made

DCIT,INT.TAX, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

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

ITA 704/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

hands of the assessee vide his order dated 18-03-2023 by observing as under:- ‘’In view of the provisions of Section 144(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has left with no alternative and compelled in view DCIT (INTL. TAX), JAIPUR VS SHRI DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

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

ITA 703/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

DIAMOND GRAIN DEALERS ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nShri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: \nShri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

n3.2\nIn view of non filing of return, ld. AO proceeded for completion of best\njudgment assessment under the provision of section 144(1)(b) and\naccordingly sent notices to the assessee. However, no compliance was\nmade to any of the five notices issued by the ld. AO and therefore

RAKESH RAMADHAR SINGH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4027/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhrirakesh Ramadhar Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, 304, B-Wing Dolphin Ward 2(3)(2), Heritage, Nehru Road, Opp. Room No. 581A, Military Camp, Santacruz 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, East, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400029. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Altps1647P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh JainFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 144Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rakesh

PULLARAO PERUGU,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1132/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 271A

were issued. The assessee neither filed his return of income nor furnished relevant details in response to the notices. Therefore, notice under Section 144(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued and proposed best judgment assessment. The assessee neither responded nor furnished the relevant details. Therefore

PULLA RAO PERUGU,PRAKASAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1035/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 271A

were issued. The assessee\nneither filed his return of income nor furnished relevant details in\nresponse to the notices. Therefore, notice under Section 144(1)(b)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued and proposed best\njudgment assessment. The assessee neither responded nor\nfurnished the relevant details. Therefore

MOHD AZGAR ALI,NALGONDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, NALGONDA

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

ITA 1283/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

return of income. Therefore, the A.O. issued various notices under Section 142(1) of the Act and also show cause notice under Section 144(1) and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment 3 Mohd. Azgar Ali should not be completed to the best

NITESH DUTT JHA,MADHUBANI vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (5), MADHUBANI

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

ITA 351/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

finalized u/s 144 was not valid in view of the fact and that no show cause notice as required by 2 proviso to section 144(1) was issued and served. (2) The learned CIT(A) as well as Learned Assessing Office, despite frequent non-compliance from the end of appellant

RAMA AGRAWAL, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.490/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rama Agrawal 33A, I. E. Bhilai, S.O Industrial Estate, Durg-490 026 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8359N

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

issued to the Assessee. He further submitted that the present assessments were 11 Rama Agrawal Vs. ITO-2(1), Bhilai framed under Section 144(1)(b) of the Act - on account of failure on the part of an Assessee to comply with all terms of a notice issued under Section

Showing 1–20 of 119 · Page 1 of 6