← All Phrases

“Section 131(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 131Section 131(1)326 judgments

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. GOVERDHAN TRANSPORT COMPANY PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 4731/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv., Sh. Pranshu SinghalFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH ‘B', NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 2041/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 133ASection 147Section 250Section 44A

during the assessment\nnoticed that during the course of survey and subsequent proceedings,\nthe statement of the assessee was recorded under section 131(1)(b) of\nthe Act on 09.09.2017. In the said statement, the assessee admitted\nthat the minimum daily sales were Rs. 25,000/-, the maximum were

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 2040/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 133ASection 147Section 250Section 44A

during the assessment\nnoticed that during the course of survey and subsequent proceedings,\nthe statement of the assessee was recorded under section 131(1)(b) of\nthe Act on 09.09.2017. In the said statement, the assessee admitted\nthat the minimum daily sales were Rs. 25,000/-, the maximum were

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR ,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2039/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
Section 133ASection 147Section 250Section 44A

during the assessment\nnoticed that during the course of survey and subsequent proceedings,\nthe statement of the assessee was recorded under section 131(1)(b) of\nthe Act on 09.09.2017. In the said statement, the assessee admitted\nthat the minimum daily sales were Rs. 25,000/-, the maximum were

IMRAN YUNUSBHAI MALWAT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2025/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Shri Soheb Luhari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 80CSection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ARJUN SINGH,PALWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5095/DEL/2025[A.Y. 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesharjun Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 1014, Prithla, Palwarl, Ward-1(1), Haryana Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Eicps8476L

For Appellant: Shri Charitra Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

MEGHJI MANSUKHLAL DODHIA,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

ITA 2224/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69D

statement was\nrecorded under section 132(4). The statement of Shri Bhavik\nJakharia was recorded under section 131. Further, a commission\nunder section 131(1)(d) was issued to the Investigation Wing at\nKolkata for conducting enquiry into the affairs of M/s Vinam\nFinance Pvt. Ltd. The Investigation Wing provided

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1069/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

TIRUMALAIAH SOMA,PRODDATUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1742/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

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

Section 131(1)Section 132ASection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपीऱीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद „ए‟ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “A” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजुनाथा

KASIREDDAY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 887/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

Subsequently, a summon under section 131 of the Act was issued during the post search proceedings and his sworn statement was recorded under-section 131(1) of the Act wherein the assessee stated that the impugned sale agreement dated 18th February 2016 was entered to show prospective customer that there

KASIREDDAY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 886/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

Subsequently, a summon under section 131 of the Act was issued during the post search proceedings and his sworn statement was recorded under-section 131(1) of the Act wherein the assessee stated that the impugned sale agreement dated 18th February 2016 was entered to show prospective customer that there

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 885/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

Subsequently, a summon under section 131 of the Act was issued during the post search proceedings and his sworn statement was recorded under-section 131(1) of the Act wherein the assessee stated that the impugned sale agreement dated 18th February 2016 was entered to show prospective customer that there

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 884/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

Subsequently, a summon under section 131 of the Act was issued during the post search proceedings and his sworn statement was recorded under-section 131(1) of the Act wherein the assessee stated that the impugned sale agreement dated 18th February 2016 was entered to show prospective customer that there

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 883/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

Subsequently, a summon under section 131 of the Act was issued during the post search proceedings and his sworn statement was recorded under-section 131(1) of the Act wherein the assessee stated that the impugned sale agreement dated 18th February 2016 was entered to show prospective customer that there

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 882/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

Subsequently, a summon under section 131 of the Act was issued during the post search proceedings and his sworn statement was recorded under-section 131(1) of the Act wherein the assessee stated that the impugned sale agreement dated 18th February 2016 was entered to show prospective customer that there

M/S RB GLOBAL AGRI TRADING P LTD ,INDORE vs. ITO 8(1) (1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 181/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

M/S RITEBABC AGRITECH SOLUTION P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT ,CIRLE 8(1) (1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 180/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

M/S RITEBABC AGRITECH SOLUTION P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT ,CIRLE 8(1) (1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 179/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPREME HOLDINGS & HOSPITALITY (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3983/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. SUPREME HOLDINGS & HOSPITALITY (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3982/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Showing 1–20 of 326 · Page 1 of 17

...