← All Phrases

“Section 131(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 131Section 131(1)(b)7 judgments

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

ACIT-(CC)-7(3), MUMBAI vs. JAY JAGANNATH STEEL AND POWER LIMITED, ODISHA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 5600/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Nikhil Rungat,ARFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 69C

{ "clean_text": "Page 1\nIN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH,\nMUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

BK EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY,NASHIK vs. ITO(E), WARD 1(1) , NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1429/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1429/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 11(1)Section 115BSection 12ASection 131(1)(b)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 16528 VISHNU COLONY, RALIWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 768/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Abhinav Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 1652 8 VISHNU COLONY, RAILWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 765/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Abhinav Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH