← All Phrases

“Section 148(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 148Section 148(1)147 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 148(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 148(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

Judgments citing Section 148(1)

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

towards possible escapement would not permit to reopen a completed assessment in defiance of statutory requirement of substantial nature. The notice issued under Section 148(1) is thus ultra vires the provision of Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, we see considerable force in the plea of the assessee

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

towards possible escapement would not permit to reopen a completed assessment in defiance of statutory requirement of substantial nature. The notice issued under Section 148(1) is thus ultra vires the provision of Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, we see considerable force in the plea of the assessee

Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujrat vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeal for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.757 To 759/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Purple Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aafcp2218P) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appeared For Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: The Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2011-12 To 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 03.11.2022 Arising Out Of The Separate Assessment Orders U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Dated 31.12.2018. Since Grounds Of Appeal Raised In These Appeals Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Dispose Of All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

towards possible escapement would not permit to reopen a completed assessment in defiance of statutory requirement of substantial nature. The notice issued under Section 148(1) is thus ultra vires the provision of Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, we see considerable force in the plea of the assessee

Bhushan Radhakishan Chechani, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward-3 Jalna, Jalna

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

ITA 1340/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1340/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashok Radhakrishan Chechnai, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.B-56, Sector C-N-4, S Ward-1, Jalna. Cidco, Aurangabad – 431001 Pan: Aappc5074R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjeevkuamr B Kabra – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Jcit(A), Gwalior Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 28.02.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether The Learned Assessing Officer Is Justified In Passing The Assessment Order For The Year On The Basis Of Joint Development Agreement Without Verifying The Fact That Possession Of Plot Till Ashok Radhakishan Chechnai [A]

Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 54F

kindly be allowed. 4. The notice under section 148 has not been served on me before passing of the order as mandated by section 148(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. Thus, the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer is not a valid order, the same

Anchor Marine Tech Services Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Int. Taxation Circle-1(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 951/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44B

Section 147 r.w Section 144 of the Act vide the assessment order dated 26.02.2020 is invalid in view of the provisions of section 148(1) of the Act. The AR relied on the decision in the case of PCIT V Atlanta Capital P Ltd (2020) 119 taxmann.com ... effect of mandatory provision of the section 148 of the I T Act. Here, it would be relevant to extract the provisions of section 148(1) of the Act which read as under: “Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. 148. (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad., Maharashtra vs. Royal Estates, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 34/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(5), Aurangabad, Maharashtra vs. Royal Estates, Aurangabad, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 33/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Coimbatore Kalyana Krishnan Venkat Raman, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 19(7), Chennai

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

ITA 38/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Shri Coimbatore Kalyana Krishnan – The Income Tax Officer, Venkat Raman, Non-Corporate Ward-19(7), 30/5, Karthik Apartments, P.A.Koil Chennai. Street, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan: Altpr 3680 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 148(1)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Vishwesh Venkatraman, Norway and Uk vs. ITO (It) 4(3)(1), Air India Building Mumbai

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

ITA 1515/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: S/Shri Harshavardhana Datar / Amit NegandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 151Section 234CSection 3Section 69

purchase of property by the assessee amounting to ₹ 2,13,87,250. On the basis of this information, invoking the provisions of section 148(1) of the Act, the A.O. issued notice for reopening the assessment. In response to which the assessee filed its return of income. Subsequently, statutory notices

DCIT Circle-23(1), New Delhi vs. Ram Kumar Shokeen, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 151

148(2) of the Act dated Nil proposing reopening of the concluded assessment under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148(1) of the Act. For the purposes of reopening the assessment and issuance of notice under s. 148 of the Act, an approval was sought

Chenniappan Ramadurai, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1337/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1337/Chny/2023 & Ita Nos.1340/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & Ay-2019-20 Shri Chenniappan Ramadurai, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu-638001. [Pan: Aelpr2706M] & Ita Nos.1343/Chny/2023 For Ay 2019-20 Smt. Ramadurai Amutha, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-638001. Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. [Pan: Afvpa4816L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्िनेत्र रवि

Inmobi Technology Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for AY

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S H.P.State Forest Coprn. Ltd., Shimla vs. JCIT, S.R., Shimla

In the result, the present appeal of Appellant/Assessee is allowed and impugned order of Ld

ITA 281/CHANDI/2000[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jun 2024AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav& Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.280& 281/Chd/2000 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 1990-91& 1991-92 M/S H.P. State Forest Corp. Ltd. Vs The Jcit, Van Nigam Kasumpti Shimla Shimla "ायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaach4036L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By: Shri Y.K. Sud, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2024 Hybridhearing आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm: Both The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Above Appeals Are Common & Were Heard Together Therefore They Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity. We Shall Take Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No. 280/Chd/2000 As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151(2)Section 250Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI

M/S H.P.State Forest Coprn. Ltd., Shimla vs. JCIT, S.R., Shimla

In the result, the present appeal of Appellant/Assessee is allowed and impugned order of Ld

ITA 280/CHANDI/2000[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jun 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav& Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.280& 281/Chd/2000 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 1990-91& 1991-92 M/S H.P. State Forest Corp. Ltd. Vs The Jcit, Van Nigam Kasumpti Shimla Shimla "ायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaach4036L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By: Shri Y.K. Sud, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2024 Hybridhearing आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm: Both The Above Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Above Appeals Are Common & Were Heard Together Therefore They Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity. We Shall Take Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No. 280/Chd/2000 As A Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151(2)Section 250Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI

M/S Pallipuram Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Non Corp Ward 2(5), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, and it’s stay petition, dismissed as infructuous

ITA 322/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Alan P Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 154Section 156Section 234ASection 234A(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, JM ITA No.322/Coch/2023

Ritvik Sandeep Kolatkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 8(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 610/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Kumar Rupavatiya
Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(a)Section 149(1)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.610/PUN./2024

Ashok Nathmal Garodia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 553/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms Neha ParanjapeFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Aishwarya Publications Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3650/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Smt. Renu Jauhri (Am) I.T.A. No. 3650/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2010-11) M/S. Aishwarya Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1)(1) Publication Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 534/579A 3Rd Floor, Centre Point Aayakar Bhavan 18Th Road, Chembur M.K. Road Mumbai-400 070. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaaca3569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.G. Goyal & Shri Harsh S. Goyal Department By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri (Am) :-

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JM) & SMT. RENU JAUHRI (AM) I.T.A

Vrp Telematics (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3022/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153C

concluded under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 153C of the Act vide 2 order dated 30.12.2014. Thereafter, notice dated 30.03.2021 was issued under Section 148(1) of the Act seeking to reopen the completed assessment of the assessee to assess certain unexplained cash credit aggregating to Rs.1 ... have carefully considered the rival submissions and the perused the material available on record. 3 6. A reference to the notice under Section 148(1) dated 22.07.2021 and reasons recorded under Section 148(2) has been made on behalf of assessee to the effect that in the instant case

Dskn Jewellers, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(3), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1051/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmadskn Jewellers Vs. Ito C/O. Mr. Samar Kapoor, Adv. Ward – 46(3) Chamber No.E-523, Karkardooma New Delhi Court, Delhi-32 Pan No. Aahfd 2162 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 27Section 271(1)(b)

quashed. 2. That no notice dated 31/03/2018 was issued within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section149(1)(b) read with Section 148(1) of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, the initiation of proceeding for reassessment is barred by limitation and even otherwise, alternatively, no notice was served ... petitioner under Section 148(1) of the Income Tax Act, as such, initiation of proceeding for reassessment deserve to be quashed. 3. That the notices u/s 142(1) dated 11/07/2018, 15.11.2018, 20.11.2018, 12.12.2018, notice u/s 271(1)(b) dated 19/12/2018 and notice under section 142(1) r.w. Section144 dated 19/12/2018