← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)13,466 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(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. 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.

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.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

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.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)

Capital Fortunes Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), It Towers

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

ITA 724/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.724/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Capital Fortunes Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aabcc5489P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C S Subrahmanyam, C.A. & Shri V Siva Kumar,Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 19/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri C S Subrahmanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

declaring a total income of Rs.4,07,82,230/-. The return of the assessee was processed by CPC under section 143(1) of the Income ITA No.724/Hyd/2025 3 Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 24.12.2021 determining the total income at Rs.5,53,67,690/-. While processing the return ... Appellate Authority. Simultaneously, the assessee also filed an application for rectification under section 154 of the Act before CPC against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. The said application was rejected by CPC. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, without adjudicating on merits, dismissed the appeal

Debasis Das, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 869/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmadebasis Das, Vs Ito, Ward-24 (1), Hooghly Motherland Nursing Home, Dankuni, Hooghly-712224 Pan No. :Akfpd 3436 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.P.Datta, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17.03.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-2021, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Addition A Sum Of Rs. 44,95,500/- Is Bad. Illegal & Arbitrary In Nature. 2. That Without Considering The Actual Purchase Consideration Of The Landed Property, The Enhance Valuation Determined By Stamp Duty Valuer Is Mere A Guess Work & Such Enhanced Valuation Is Without Any Basis. Hence Such Enhancement Shall Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That The Assessing Officer Ought To Have Considered The Alternative Remedy Which Are Available In Income Tax Act & Refer This Matter To The Dvo For Fresh Valuation. 4. That On The Basis Of Mere Difference Between Stamp Duty Valuation & Actual Sale Consideration Shall Not Be The Sole Determination For Such Unlawful & Illegal Addition. Hence The Benefit Of Law Which Are Available & Prescribed In The Act Shall Be Taken Into Consideration At The Time Of Such Determination Of Such Income Tax Liability.

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1903/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

declaring total income of Rs.39,90,890/-. The return of income filed for the A.Y. 2018-19 was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, on 08- 01-2020. Similarly, the return of income filed for A.Y. 2019-20 has been processed on 14-05-2020. The ld. AO/CPC ... read with section 43B of the Act and argued that additions made by ld. AO in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act is contrary to law because the AO has not issued a show-cause 3 ITANo.1902&1903/Kol/2024 notice nor given an opportunity before making

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1902/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

declaring total income of Rs.39,90,890/-. The return of income filed for the A.Y. 2018-19 was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, on 08- 01-2020. Similarly, the return of income filed for A.Y. 2019-20 has been processed on 14-05-2020. The ld. AO/CPC ... read with section 43B of the Act and argued that additions made by ld. AO in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act is contrary to law because the AO has not issued a show-cause 3 ITANo.1902&1903/Kol/2024 notice nor given an opportunity before making

Sharadamba Enterprises, Hubli vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hubballi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for defective presentation and also for non-prosecution

ITA 1407/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Krishna Residency A B and C Co - Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO WD. 41(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are dismissed

ITA 4766/MUM/2025[2016 - 17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Krishna Residency A B & C Co-Operative Ito, Ward – 41(3)(2), Mumbai Housing Society Limited, Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Society Office, C Wing, Krishna Residency Complex, Mumbai -400051. A B & C Chs Ltd., Behind Sunder Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai – 400064. [Pan: Aaabk0296L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 80P

dated 14.06.2018 was served on same day i.e. 14.06.2018. The assessee in Form 35, in column 15 further submitted that “Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dt. 14.06.2018 did not come to the attention of the appellant as the email mobile phone registered with the Dept. remained ... lower authorities carefully. I find that for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 08.09.2017. The CPC issued intimation under section 143(1) on 14.08.2018. The first appeal before ld. CIT(A) is filed only on 30.08.2024. Thus, there was delay of 2240 days in filing appeal

Phoenix Commodities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(2)(3), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, grounds of appeal of

ITA 4730/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 23.09.2013 declaring Nil income. The return of income was processed under section 143(1). Thereafter, case of assessee was reopened under section 147. Notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2019 was served upon the assessee. Case of assessee was reopened

Phoenix Commodities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of

ITA 4729/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 23.09.2013 declaring Nil income. The return of income was processed under section 143(1). Thereafter, case of assessee was reopened under section 147. Notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2019 was served upon the assessee. Case of assessee was reopened

Tata Communications Payment Solutions Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2230/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankartata Communications V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Payment Solutions Limited, बनाम Income Tax, Circle – Plot C-21 & C-36, G Block, 14(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Tower 6, Bandra Kurla Mumbai – 400051, Complex, Vidyanagari, S.O., Maharashtra Mumbai–400 098, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcb3924G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Bains, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 37Section 40Section 40A(7)

case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made in the intimation dated November 8, 2019 issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore (hereinafter referred ... proper evaluation of the issues involved. The ld.DR relied on the appellate order. 6. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act wherein the first proviso to the section casts a duty upon the AO that if any disallowance of expenditure indicated

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Delhi vs. Maharaji Educational Trust, Ghaziabad

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2112/Del/2025 (A.Y 2021-22) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Maharaji Educational E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Trust, H-1, Sector 12, Delhi Santosh Nagar, Pratap Pan: Aaatm5225F Vihar, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ca Suresh K. Gupta Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

Section 10Section 10BSection 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 14A

1 ITA No. 2112/DEL/2025 DCIT Vs. Maharaji Educational Trust IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW

Henna Industries Private Limited, Faridabad vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 4730/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 43BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Sidhe Petrochemicals P Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4081/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2023-24] M/S. Sidhe Petrochemicals Vs Ddit, (P.) Ltd., 63, Rama Marg, Cc, Bengaluru New Delhi-110015. Ito, Ward-49(1), Pan-Abecs6259D Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca & Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA No.4081/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-24(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8767/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer has not disposed of the above objections. Further he submitted that assessee has raised submissions before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) has not appreciated the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

case are, assessee filed its return of income on 03.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs.16,470/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and subsequently, the case was selected under CASS for detailed scrutiny. As per the assessment order

ITO, Ward- 24(3), New Delhi vs. Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8656/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT, SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

case are, assessee filed its return of income on 03.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs.16,470/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and subsequently, the case was selected under CASS for detailed scrutiny. As per the assessment order

Meena Swarup, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mrs. Meena Swarup, Vs Dcit, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., Pan-Amrps5792E New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Ahuja, Ca & Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

ITA No.2050/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Devenra Kumar Gupta, Rewa vs. ACIT, Circle Satna, Satna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Devendra Kumar Gupta V. Acit Circle Satna 17/304, Venkat Road, Ghoghar, Income Tax Office, Aaykar Rewa-486001. Bhawan, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Pan: Ahapg6843Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “SMC”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2017-18

Priyesh Singhania, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194D

making adjustment on the basis of information available in the Form 26AS related to TDS u/s.194DA as the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(vi) stipulates that addition of income can be made but the refund of the maturity proceeds of Life Insurance Policy is not an income ... addition involving legal interpretation and factual clarification falls beyond the scope of prima facie adjustments permissible under ub clause (0 to (vi) of section 143(1)(a). The impugned addition made by the CPC is bad in law. If at all the observation of the CPC had to be processed

Musaddilal Mansaram Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 160/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद

Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur vs. Musaddilal Mansaram Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 153/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद

Mithilesh Jagdeo Singh Pawar, Amravati vs. ITO Ward-5, Amravati

ITA 70/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Mithilesh Jagdeo Singh Ito Ward-5 Pawar, Besides Dps, Vs. Ghatladki, Chandur Bazar, Saturna Road, Maharashtra - 444720. Maharashtra - 444605. Pan: Bpfpp6167L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Mrudul Bhusari, Ld. Adv {Ld. Amicus Curie} Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry:

For Appellant: Ms. Mrudul Bhusari, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(40)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017