← 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)

Rinki Shashikant Gandhi, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

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

ITA 546/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.545/Ahd/2025 & 546/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively Rinki Shahikant Gandhi Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ 19, Kalpana Society Income-Tax V/S. Race Course Circle Circle-2(1)(1) Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abypg 0971 B (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl/Jcit (A)-7, Mumbai, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 29/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2020-21 & 2021-2022. Since Common Facts & Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.545/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2020-21 Is Taken As A Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

No.545/Ahd/2025 for AY 2020-21 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The CPC, in its intimation order under Section 143(1) has not allowed the appellant's claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) solely due to the delay in submitting Form 67. However, the denial

Rinki Shashikant Gandhi, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

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

ITA 545/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.545/Ahd/2025 & 546/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively Rinki Shahikant Gandhi Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ 19, Kalpana Society Income-Tax V/S. Race Course Circle Circle-2(1)(1) Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abypg 0971 B (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl/Jcit (A)-7, Mumbai, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 29/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2020-21 & 2021-2022. Since Common Facts & Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.545/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2020-21 Is Taken As A Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

No.545/Ahd/2025 for AY 2020-21 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The CPC, in its intimation order under Section 143(1) has not allowed the appellant's claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) solely due to the delay in submitting Form 67. However, the denial

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shaligram Infra Projects LLP, Ahmedabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 291/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

power to assess or reassess the total income of six preceding assessment years, even if the earlier assessments had been completed under section 143(1) or 143(3). However, that decision was premised on the fact that incriminating material (loan documents and supporting GPAs) was actually recovered during the search

Shaligram Infra Projects LLP ( Ltd. Liability Partnership), Ahmedabad vs. The JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 233/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

power to assess or reassess the total income of six preceding assessment years, even if the earlier assessments had been completed under section 143(1) or 143(3). However, that decision was premised on the fact that incriminating material (loan documents and supporting GPAs) was actually recovered during the search

Mrs. Meher Pheroz Pudumjee, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 638/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. N. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolkata vs. Avinash Commercial Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1603/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)

this Court discussed the legal position regarding re-opening of assessments where the return filed at the initial stage was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not under section 143(3) of the Act. The reasons for the re-opening of the assessment in that case were

Dynaspede Integrated Systems Private Limited, Salem Tamil Nadu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1861/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1860 & 1861/Chny/2024 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Narahari Nava Kanth, C.A LMFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग

Dynaspede Integrated Systems Private Limited, Salem, Tamil Nadu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1860/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1860 & 1861/Chny/2024 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Narahari Nava Kanth, C.A LMFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग

Lowes Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1734/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

twice in the assessment order, when the same was already included in the enhanced income as per the intimation order under Section 143(1) processed by the Centralized Processing Centre. Page 4 of 15 5. The Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and in the facts by considering

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard India Sales P. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1252/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

without appreciating that the AO has levied interest under section 234B and section 220(2) of the Act on the demand raised under section 143(1) of the Act for the same period. 10.3 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that ... filed its return of income on 13.10.2010 at a total taxable income of ₹ 1,436,040,795/-. This return was processed under section 143 (1) of the Act and subsequently return of income [ROI] was picked up for scrutiny by issuing notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1

Hewlett Pakcard India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1245/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40

without appreciating that the AO has levied interest under section 234B and section 220(2) of the Act on the demand raised under section 143(1) of the Act for the same period. 10.3 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that ... filed its return of income on 13.10.2010 at a total taxable income of ₹ 1,436,040,795/-. This return was processed under section 143 (1) of the Act and subsequently return of income [ROI] was picked up for scrutiny by issuing notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1

Khimjim Poonja Global Logistics, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Bandra

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3679/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Khimji Poonja Global V/S. Income Tax Officer, Logistics, 9, Sugar Market, बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Pd Mello Road, Carnac Kurla Complex, Bandra Bunder, Mumbai - 400 009, (East), Mumbai – 400052, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfk7994A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anand Naik,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37B

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Khimji Poonja Global Logistics, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3668/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Khimji Poonja Global V/S. Income Tax Officer, Logistics, 9, Sugar Market, बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Pd Mello Road, Carnac Kurla Complex, Bandra Bunder, Mumbai - 400 009, (East), Mumbai – 400052, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfk7994A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anand Naik,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37B

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITO, Mumbai vs. Vatika Rayons Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2895/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

Jayanth Gaddipati, Guntur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.310/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jayanth Gaddipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(3), Pan: Bbmpg1369Q Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 04/09/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 3Section 69A

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

Anjan Dasgupta, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 218/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 218/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Anjan Dasgupta, Vs. Dcit, Gurgaon. Circle-1(1), Pan: Afspd0589G Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Nitin Gulati, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Nitin Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 249(2)

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad., Vejalpur vs. Pel Industries Limited, Ashram Road

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2216/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs.3,41,66,470/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had received an information that the assessee was a beneficiary of transaction of Rs.116

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshkumar Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &
Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT