← All Phrases

“Section 143(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(3)45,044 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(3) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(3)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

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. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

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.

Judgments citing Section 143(3)

Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr. CIT (Central) - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 787/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2021-22 Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd.……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 24 Magma House, 10Th Floor, 24, Park Street, Park Centre, W.B. – 700016.. [Pan: Aaccr3964K] Vs. Pcit (Central) -2, Kolkata…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. P N Barnwal, Cit - Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 05, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Of The Principal Cit (Central)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Pcit”) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2021–22. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Showing Loss Of Rs.10,36,29,610/- & Deemed Total Income U/S 115Jb Of The Act At Nil. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 18.12.2021 In The Cases Of Raj Group & Others By Dit(Inv.). The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Going Over The Submission Made By The Assessee & Notices U/S 143(2) & Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd 142(1) Were Issued. However, The Assessing Officer Assessed Total Income Of The Assessee At A Loss Of Rs.10,36,29,610/- & Further Assessed The Income Of Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act As Nil. The Ld. Pcit By Exercising His Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act Has Found That The Discrepancies On The Following Issues:

Section 115JSection 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shri Jaya Pradeep, Chennai

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

ITA 960/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft va wa faeaata tid, arr Bees Va sit VA. HR

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Dormakaba India Private Limited, Kancheepuram

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

ITA 21/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.21/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)

earlier year, the appellant had disclosed the opening stock and closing stock separately. ii) The AO while passing the order under section 143(3) had made addition to the income of the appellant amounting to Rs.13,05,50,357/- on account of difference in disclosure of closing stock

Damodaram Suresh, Gobichettipalayam vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2715/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2715/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Damodaran Suresh, The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Sumy Electronic, Vs. Ward-1(1), No.52, Main Road, Erode. Gobichettipalayam Tamil Nadu - 638 452. [Pan: Aijps3460M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Bipin, C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri (): The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1 [Pcit] Dated 09.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 198 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed Petition Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Damodaram Suresh :- 2 -: Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. On Perusal Of The Aforesaid Reasons In The Condonation Application, We Are Of The View That There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

For Appellant: Mr.Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin, C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 40A(3)

controversy the following chart would be helpful: Sl. Event Date No Return of income filed 1 25.10.2017 Scrutiny assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of 2 31.12.2019 the Act Revision order of the PCIT – Coimbatore in setting aside the 3 25.03.2022 scrutiny assessment order dated 31.12.2019 (1st Round arising

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Vijaya Bank, Baroda Corporate Centre Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2296/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 201Section 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Interest paid to Political Party Rs 6,98,06,208/- . Being aggrieved by the said order under section 143(3) read with section 147, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the ld CIT (A) who deleted the addition. 5. This appeal is e-filed

M/S Informatica Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Rage-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3356/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271Section 274Section 28Section 37Section 40

3356/Bang/2018 is filed by Informatica Business Solutions Private Limited (the assessee/appellant) for assessment year 2014 – 15 against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 29/10/2018 passed by the Page 2 of 18 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special ... facts 1. The order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range -3 ['the A01, under section 143(3) read with NA section 144C of the Income-tax Act, T 961 ['the Act') is bad in law and on facts. 2. Addition of reimbursement received towards foreign exchange

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. Dentsu Aegis Network India Prviate Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6123/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri A.K. JawadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Learned Deputy Commissioner of 2 Dentsu Aegis Network India Private Limited Income-tax, Central Circle-1(1) Mumbai (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 03/05/2021. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “GROUNDS OF APPEAL "1. Whether ... time before the final adjudication of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was scrutinised under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein the Ld. AO made a disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Rule

Rupa Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 4750/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4750/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Anil Kumar HUF, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 35(5), Delhi

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

ITA 737/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumaranil Kumar Huf, Vs. Ito, 2639/4, Naya Bazar, Ward-35(5), Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacha6188H Assessee By : Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Shri Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 69C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4939/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandracambridge Construction Vs. Ito, Ward 5(3) (Delhi) Private Limited New Delhi – 110002 11, Monnet House, Masjid Moth, New Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacc0295N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. VK Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

P a g e | 1 Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2013-14) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

Prabha Devi, Saharanpur vs. ITO Ward-3(3)(5), Saharanpur

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4377/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalprabha Devi Vs. Ito, Ward 3(3)(5) House No. 1/1522, Juneja Income Tax Office, Court Bhawan, Wazeer Vihar, Road, Haqikatnagar, Khalasi Line, Saharanpur Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh – 247001 Uttar Pradesh – 247001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agopd6725H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Sahni, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr
Section 143(3)

P a g e | 1 Prabha Devi (AY: 2018-19) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE

M/S Frozen Iron and Steel Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3065/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Frozen Iron & Steel Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited. Nb-426, 4Th Income Tax, Central Circle- Floor, Nbc Complex, Plot No. 25, Jhandewalan Extension, 43, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, New Delhi Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan:Aabcf439Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Sh. Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-29, New Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Order Dated 24/03/2025 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed On 14/12/2019 Under Section 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 14/12/2019 under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Delhi vs. Three C Residency Private Limited, South Delhi

The appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2113/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit Vs. Three C Residency Private E-2, Ara Centre, Limited , C-23, Greater Jhandewalan Kailash Enclave, Part-1, Delhi – 110055 Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaect0622Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rohit Kapoor, &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

P a g e | 1 Three C Residency Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Mahalakshmi Light House, Hapur

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3513/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mahalakshmi Light House, Income Tax 285, Avas Vikas Vihar, Room No. 201, First Floor, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi, Pan: Aatfm3627N Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

Section 147Section 69C

cannot obviate the requirement or complying with a jurisdictional condition. For the Assessing Officer to make an order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, it is necessary to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act and in the absence of a notice under section ... that the same would be considered for completing of assessment, would show that the AO has the duty of issuing the notice under Section 143(3) to lead on to the passing of the assessment. In the circumstances, with no notice issued u/s 143(3) and there being no waiver

Starkey Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3205/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalstarkey Laboratories Dy. Cit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-24(2), C-2, Sector-7, Vs. New Delhi. Gautam Buddha Nagar-201301, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aakcs6072R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(1)(b)Section 37(1)Section 92C

allowable business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such provisions have been allowed in scrutiny assessments completed under section 143(3) for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, thereby acknowledging their admissibility under the provisions of the Act. 1.31. In this regard

JCIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi vs. Awifs Space Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1650/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmajoint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Awfis Space Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 153A, C.R. C-28-29, Kissan Bhawan Building, I.P. Estate, Qutum Institutional Area, New Delhi – 110002 New Delhi- 110016 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanca1175G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

P a g e | 1 M/s AWFIS Space Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Luminous Power Technologies Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

In the result Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1594/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 92C

1 ITA Nos. 1593 & 1594/Del/2022 Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [DELHI

Luminous Power Technologies Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1593/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 92C

1 ITA Nos. 1593 & 1594/Del/2022 Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [DELHI

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Chitavalsah Jute Mills Limited, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 144Section 271D

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

Income Tax Officer, Ashoknagar vs. Ajit Singh, Shivpuri

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

ITA 89/AGR/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Upadhyay, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(1)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH , JUDICIAL