← All Phrases

“Section 28(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 28Section 28(1)62 judgments

SRIMAD VIRAT POTHULURI VEERABRAHMENDRA SWAMULAVARI MUTTAM,KADAPA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate

which has escaped assessment. Having considered the\nscope and object of the said provisions, the Full Bench held that\npenalty under section 28(1)(c) of the old Act /corresponding to\nsection 271(1)(c) of the new Act can be levied during the course of\nproceedings under section

SRIMAD VIRAT POTTULURI VEERA BRAHMENDRA SWAMULA VARI MATTAM,CUDDAPAH vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

which has escaped assessment. Having considered the scope and object of the said provisions, the Full Bench held that penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the old Act /corresponding to section 271(1)(c) of the new Act can be levied during the course of proceedings under section

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 6th February, 2026

ITA 1468/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

which has escaped assessment.\nHaving considered the scope and object of the said provisions,\nthe Full Bench held that penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the\nold Act [corresponding to section 271(1)(c) of the new Act] can\nbe levied during the course of proceedings under section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

ITA 5334/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CETRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

ITA 5333/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)

operate IT/Software Parks and provide comprehensive infrastructure, clearly indicated business activity.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 28(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 10A", "Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Accordingly, both the appeals of the\nRevenue are dismissed

ITA 5332/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

Income. Thus, income derived from letting out the property would not amount to profits or gains from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 6 the Act. since the presence of business is absent ... Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 7 and it does not amount to profit or gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

Income. Thus, income derived from letting out the property would not amount to profits or gains from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 6 the Act. since the presence of business is absent ... Years: 2014-15 and 2017-18 7 and it does not amount to profit or gain from the business within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act , because in the instant case, the presence of business activity is totally absent. 7.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that

RAVI SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 25(3), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

In the result, all remaining ground are allowed with the aforesaid directions

ITA 4186/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 254(1)Section 28Section 28(1)

case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not dealing with the Ground Nos. 1.3 (in respect of applicability of section 28(1), 1.4 (in respect of applying Rule 11UA for valuation of shares), 1.5. (v) (in respect of arriving at a separate value for non-compete fees

SHRI ANTRIKSH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(4), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 2421/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

case where an assessee has furnished no return at all before the Income Tax Officer, it should be presumed for the purposes of Section 28(1)(b) that he has furnished a return of his income intimating the Income Tax Officer that his income is nil It seems ... that the language of Section 28(1) does not admit of any such construction since the clear requirement of the provisions of this sub-section is that an assessee on whom a penalty is proposed to be imposed under Section 28(1)(b) should have in the first instance furnished

SHRI ANTRIKSH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(4), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 2420/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271ASection 271B

case where an assessee has furnished no return at all before the Income Tax Officer, it should be presumed for the purposes of Section 28(1)(b) that he has furnished a return of his income intimating the Income Tax Officer that his income is nil It seems ... that the language of Section 28(1) does not admit of any such construction since the clear requirement of the provisions of this sub-section is that an assessee on whom a penalty is proposed to be imposed under Section 28(1)(b) should have in the first instance furnished

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly

ITA 334/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly

ITA 333/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT

DEVANG BHUPENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kapadia,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vis. Sangitaben Jagdishkumar Shah reported in [2023] 156 taxmann.com 147 (Gujarat) whereas held as under: Section 28(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Business loss deduction Allowable as (Bogus loss Sale of shares) Assessment year 2011-12 - An information was received from

H & M HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi and Shri Nishith KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

Tamil Nadu in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456(SC) dated April 9, 2015. The head note of the same is reproduced here as under: "Section 28(1), read with section 22, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Business Income Chargeable as (Letting out of Properties) - Whether where in terms of memorandum

ACIT 2(2)(1) MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL PEROXIDE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No 2816/Mum/2023 is partly allowed

ITA 2816/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit 2(2)(1) Mumbai Vs National Peroxide Limited 4Th Floor, Naville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcn7072K

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 43B

regard I refer to CBDT CIRCULAR no 35D (XLVII 20) of 1965, F.NO. 10/48/65-IT(AI) dated 24, November, 1965...which is reproduced below -. SECTION 28(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BUSINESS LOSS/DEDUCTIONS ALLOWABLE AS LOSS ARISING DUE TO EMBEZZLEMENT - WHETHER IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCIDENTAL TO BUSINESS

MAHAKOSHAL REFREACTORIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Kantilal Gugalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ANKUL CONSTRUCTION CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSIT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC BENGLURU/ITO WD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 484/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 484/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Anukul Constriction Co. Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 901, Aalap-B, Opp. Shastri Ground, Tax, Cpc Bangaluru / Ito Limda Chowk, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfa2385E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jay Kathrani, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri Jay Kathrani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 28Section 28(1)Section 30Section 38Section 40Section 40a

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

PUJA ENTERTAINMENT (INDIA) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3285/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

ITA 183/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Naresh Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Nargas (JCIT)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147

favour of revenue].\"\n16. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 338 (Allahabad) HIGH COURT OF\nALLAHABAD Distributors India C and F v. Union of India.\n\"Section 28(1), read with sections 147 and 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-\nBusiness income Chargeable as (Reassessment) Assessment year 2013-14\nAssessing Officer issued

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4