← All Phrases

“Section 2(1)(t)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(1)(t)13 judgments

THALLA SRISAILAM GOUD,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 589/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR and Ms. Payal Gupta, SR-DR
Section 147Section 148

contended by the Department in these proceedings. 16.6. Since the impugned notices have been issued in an electronic form, the provisions of section 2(1)(t), section 3, section 13, section 66A of the Act of 2000 would be relevant as the same govern electronic communication. In the present case

DESU ENTERPRISES,ONGOLE vs. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

ITA 549/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
For Respondent: \nShri Sashank Dundu, Advocate
Section 147Section 148

contended by the Department in\nthese proceedings.\n16.6. Since the impugned notices have been issued in an electronic form, the\nprovisions of section 2(1)(t), section 3, section 13, section 66A of the Act of\n2000 would be relevant as the same govern electronic communication. In the\npresent case

DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRU DHIREN SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4294/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income V/S. Niru Dhiren Shah Tax, Central Circle – 8(2) बनाम 3Rd Floor, Flat No. 35, Jolly Room No. 658, 6Th Floor, Maker Apartment, No. 3 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 119, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Churchgate, Mumbai –400020, Mumbai – 400 005, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aanps7632R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

assessee’s claim that the chat was “unauthorized” and not binding, it was submitted that whatsApp chats qualify as electronic records under section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and are admissible if compliant with P a g e | 9 A.Y. 2022-23 Niru Dhiren Shah, Mumbai

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1348/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

drawing satisfaction based upon the alleged seized electronic record without first considering its admissibility u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act r/w section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act and section 132 (iib) of Act not before the AO; 12 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1347/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

drawing satisfaction based upon the alleged seized electronic record without first considering its admissibility u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act r/w section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act and section 132 (iib) of Act not before the AO; 12 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1346/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

drawing satisfaction based upon the alleged seized electronic record without first considering its admissibility u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act r/w section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act and section 132 (iib) of Act not before the AO; 12 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1345/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

drawing satisfaction based upon the alleged seized electronic record without first considering its admissibility u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act r/w section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act and section 132 (iib) of Act not before the AO; 12 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1344/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

drawing satisfaction based upon the alleged seized electronic record without first considering its admissibility u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act r/w section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act and section 132 (iib) of Act not before the AO; 12 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1343/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

drawing satisfaction based upon the alleged seized electronic record without first considering its admissibility u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act r/w section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act and section 132 (iib) of Act not before the AO; 12 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1342/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

drawing satisfaction based upon the alleged seized electronic record without first considering its admissibility u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act r/w section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act and section 132 (iib) of Act not before the AO; 12 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1) BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU vs. SHRI BOMMAI SOMMAPPA BASAVARAJ, BANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

ITA 922/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 250(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1) BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU vs. SHRI BOMMAI SOMMAPPA BASAVARAJ, BANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

ITA 914/BANG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 250(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI B S YEDIYURAPPA , BANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

ITA 14/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Asst.Commissioner Of Shri B.S. Yediyurappa, Income Tax, No.381, Davalgiri, Ii Main Circle - 1(3)(1) Vs. Vi Cross, Off 80 Ft Road, Bengaluru Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru Pan – Aaapy4922F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt. Beena Pillai, JM