← All Phrases

“Section 139(9)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(9)193 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(9) is Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (30 SOT 374), cited in 201 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(9)

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT
30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT
201
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court
179
citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

DDIT v. Savvis Communication Corporation
69 Taxmann.com 106 · 2016 · ITAT
107
citing judgments

Payments for web hosting services, including data back-up, maintenance, security, and uninterrupted services, are not taxable as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, as they do not constitute 'consideration for use of, or right to use, scientific equipment'.

CIT v. Merchant
280 CTR 381 · 2015 · High Court
68
citing judgments

The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act are distinct, meaning they cannot be read together to determine an assessee's entitlement to a deduction for belatedly paid employee contributions.

42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
139 Taxmann.com 448 · 2022 · ITAT
62
citing judgments

The claim for Foreign Tax Credit cannot be denied solely due to a delay in filing Form-67, as the requirement for filing Form-67 under Rule 128(9) is considered directory and not mandatory. The provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) prevail over the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Adobe Systems Inc. v. ADIT
203 Taxmann 554 · 2011 · High Court
59
citing judgments

A fixed place of business constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5(1) of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement only if the premises are actually at the disposal of the foreign enterprise, thereby satisfying the crucial 'disposal test', and it is through this fixed place that the foreign enterprise carries on its business, wholly or partly.

CIT v. Mithilesh Kumari
92 ITR 9 · 1973 · High Court
54
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital used to acquire an asset, paid year after year until the date of sale, must be capitalized and included in the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains.

Dell International Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT Manu/APJ2002/
305 ITR 37 · 2008 · High Court
50
citing judgments

Retrospective amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, introducing Explanations 5 and 6 regarding royalty income, do not automatically apply to Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) if the DTAAs themselves have not been correspondingly amended.

Judgments citing Section 139(9)

Bellona Estate Developers Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 6581/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Pande, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 250Section 28Section 44Section 44A

applicable to the Assessee.” 3. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the rejection of its return of income under section 139(9) on the basis that the books of accounts were not audited under section 44AB of the Act by the assessee even though the assessee has claimed ... that the assessee filed its return of income on 07/11/2022, declaring a business loss of INR 18,62,318. Subsequently, notice under section 139(9) dated 14/12/2022 was issued intimating the assessee that its return of income is defective on the basis that the assessee has not audited its books

Hiranand Family Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6335/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrihiranand Family Trust V/S. Ito Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai 6Th Floor, Mistry Bhavan, बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Dinshaw Vaccha Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra Churchgate, Mumbai- East, Mumbai-400051 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mumh10606B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 139(9)Section 250Section 270ASection 44A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Othukkungal Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No.F1039, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Malappuram

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

ITA 858/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Othukkungal Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Xi/38, Service Bank Building, Kuzhipuram Road, Othukungal, Malappuram 676528 [Pan: Aaaao1158J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 .......... Respondent Tharff Bazar, Opp. Town Hall, Tirur 676101

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2018-19 Othukkungal Service

Geratpur Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1569/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1569/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22) बनाम/ Geratpur Bhagyalaxmi The Ito Co-Operative Housing Ward-3(3)(1) Vs. Society Limited Ahmedabad–380015 Sachin Tower, 100 Ft. Anand Nagar Road Manekbaug So, Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaag 8270 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ SMC, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

Nehal Ahmed, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle- 4, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 365/PAT/2024[A.Y. 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.365/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Nehal Ahmed..………………..….....…..…………………....Appellant House No – B/15, New Azimabad Colony (East), Sector-B, Sandalpur, Mahendru, Patna- 800006. [Pan: Aerpa2555B] Vs. Acit, Circle-4, Patna……..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Earned Income From Civil Contract. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Declaring An Income Of Rs.10,58,610/-. The Assessee Initially Had Filed Return Of Income U/S 139(9) Of The Act & Subsequently Revised It Declaring The Same Income. The Assessee Disclosed Income From Contractual Receipt Amounting To Rs.92,51,630/- & Declared Taxable Income U/S 44Ad On Presumptive Basis At Rs.9,25,163/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Saikat Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. ITO 61(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1866/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

Description 30.08.2019 Assessee filed income tax return for AY 2019-20, declaring salary income of ₹841,962/-. 04.02.2020 Assessee received defect notice under Section 139(9). 12.02.2020 Appeal filed before CIT(A) against defect notice under Section 139(9). 01.09.2020 CPC passed an order under Section 143(1), disallowing proportionate ... mismatch in Form 26AS and ITR. 20.03.2024 CIT(A)-22 dismissed the appeal against Section 139(9) notice as non-maintainable due to procedural issues. 19.04.2024 Assessee filed appeal against Section 143(1) order before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 04.07.2024 Appeal filed against 143(1) dismissed by NFAC

Punit Deora Trust, Mum vs. ITO, Ward-25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6249/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Ms.Renu Jauhripunit Deora Trust, C/O Vs. Income Tax Department Mumbai – Punit International, 17, Fair Field Society, Opp. K.C. College Churchgate,Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaatp1811E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.L. Jain & Sh. Satish Jain, Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 15.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per: Amit Shukla, Jm: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.10.2024 Passed By Addl./Jcit (A), Bhubaneshwar, In Relation To The Adjust Assessment Made U/S 143(1) For The Year 2018-19. 2. In Various Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Firstly, Not Granting Of Deduction U/S 24(A) To Rs.1,97,80,200/- As Claimed By The Assessee By Computing The Income From House

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 161Section 24

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Punit

Kishore Singh Shekhawat, Bjs Colony Jodhpur vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Compliance with Statutory Requirements: The appellant has not provided any justification for failing to file the ITR as per the provisions of Section 139(9) and has not responded to the notice under section148. This behavior reflects a disregard for statutory compliance and tax obligations. d. Lack of Deposits Post

Kongu Trust, Salem vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1267/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Kavita Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(5), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6243/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

accompanied by any pre- paid taxes. Thus, both original return and so called revised return were defective as per the provision of Section 139(9) of the Act and, therefore, Assessing Officer should have directed the assessee to rectify the defect till the time of passing of the order. Here ... this case no such defect notice under Section 139(9) of the Act has been issued by the Assessing Officer and no taxes were paid by 6 the assessee, as per return of income till the passing of the assessment order. Even the ld. CIT(Appeals) could not have entertained

DCIT Circle 27(1), New Delhi vs. United Drilling Tools Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5913/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)

state of affairs of the Assessee as on 01/04/2013 and a return filed reflecting the same cannot be ignored on the strength of section 139(9) of the Act. The merits otherwise on the return field have never been challenged by the A.O. Therefore, in our opinion the assessed income

Aditi Infrabuild and Services Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 30, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 726/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)

High Court, it was held that once the return has been found to be valid and only a defect within the meaning of section 139(9) of the Act was found then the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in levying interest. 6. We are in respectful agreement

Jivrajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary, Banaskantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Palanpur

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

ITA 1024/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Jivarajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary Income Tax Officer Patel Vas, Village : Hadta, Jadiya Vs Ward-3 Tal. Dhanera Palanpur. Dist: Banaskantha Gujarat. Pan : Azzpp 6148 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Assessee By : Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

assessee at page no.28 as under: 9 17. She pointed out that the AO had treated the return as invalid in terms of section 139(9) of the Act and not for the reason that it was belated return. At this juncture, the ld.DR was asked to enlighten the Bench ... provision of section 139(9), which could lead to a return being treated as invalid. Ongoing through the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act, it transpires that as per the provision of the said section, a defective return, whose defects were not cured, was to be treated

DCIT., Central Circle, Tirupati vs. Bi Mining Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 709/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit Vs. M/S Bi Mining (P) Ltd Central Circle Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aagcb6685D (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/05/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Visakhapatnam, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On The Facts & In Law. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances, The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow Credit Of Tds Without Appreciating The Fact That, The Claim Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 199

ITA No 709 of 2024 BI MINING P LTD आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Asian Hotels (North) Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 654/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember M/S. Asian Hotels (North) Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, 1A, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi – 1. Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066. (Pan: Aaaca0125H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-1 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Pcit’) Dated 31.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.32,48,76,393/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143 (3)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 438

been shown as Nil for current year as well as for preceding year thereby making the Tax Audit Report defective as per Section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. xi. As per Form 3CD- Stamp value of Kolkata property is shown at Rs.130,90,91,035/- as against

Subba Reddy Mareddy, Guntur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Subba Reddy Mareddy V. Ito - Ward-1(1) Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 25-2-56 Prop Amarnath Chillies Traders Opp Mastan Durga Ragraharam Guntur – 522004, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Alfpm2380K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 199

admitting a total income of Rs.9,35,130/-. The tax on total income declared worked out to Rs.67,881/-. A defective notice under section 139(9) of the Act dated 11.11.2022 was issued to the assessee by the Income tax Authority, CPC, Bengaluru. In response, assessee has not responded ... notice issued under section 139(9) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act granted TDS only to the extent of Rs. 3,073/-as against Rs.1,24,286/- claimed

Sh.Randhir Singh, Mohali vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

ITA 37/CHANDI/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 263

hasclaimed that this is a removable defect. But that's not as per law. In this case thereturn is not defective under section 139(9) which is a correctable defect but invalidas it has not been verified and signed. It's just a paper and not a return filed Theclaim ... that verification of return in prescribed manner is mandatory requirement of law. Statute is clear. Our attention was invited to the provisions of section 139(9) to state that return is invalid and not valid. The ld. DR also contended that return of income is required to be filed under

Ghanshyambhai Ambalal Patel, Kheda vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1007/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 263Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant

Sudhir Shankar Halwasiya, Lucknow vs. ACIT-3, Lucknow

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

ITA 201/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Sudhir Shankar Halwasiya, The Acit-Iii, Halwasiya Court, Hazratganj, Vs. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 Lucknow-226001 Pan:Aanph9171L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On 3.11.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Which Was Filed Against The Order Passed By The Acit-3, Lucknow Under Section 143(3) On 20.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

return, the schedule had not been filled. This could be regarded as a defect in the return and a notice under section 139(9) could have been issued by the Department on this account. However, once the incomes related to the assets were duly shown, this in itself, could

Investors Grievances Forum, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centrlalised Processing Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1903/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalinvestors Grievances Forum, 9-, Neelam Nagar, Mulund, Mumbai. Maharashtra – 400 081 Pan No.: Aaati0293F ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cpc Jurisdiction Of Ao Exem., Ward 1(3) Itd, Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN