← 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)

Prakashbhai Dhirubhai Thakkar, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 222/RJT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.222/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR

Sagarlaxmi Agriseeds Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1918/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2017-18 Sagarlaxmi Agriseeds Pvt Ltd Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) 206, Ashwamegh Avenue Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Mithakhali Garden Navrangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aawcs 7561 F (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

consideration i.e. Asst. Year 2017-18 on 10-10-2017 declaring a loss of Rs.2,78,32,804/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case was thereafter selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine the issue of large increase in share capital during

Shubhkaran Triveni Foundation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 503/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.503/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year. :2022-2023) Shubhkaran Triveni Foundation Vs Ito Ward-1(3), Exemption, Kolkata 1St Floor, 18 Rn Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. : Aagts 8480 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-11, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Posted On Multiple Occasions & None Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. As None Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee, Therefore, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Being Heard Ex-Parte Qua The Assessee. 4. A Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A) Shows That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A) On Account Of Delay. It Is Noticed That The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act Has Been Issued Making An Addition Of Rs.44 Lakhs Received By The Assessee Towards Corpus Donation.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

shows that the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act has been issued without issuing the intimation as required under the first proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act. The reasons for the treatment of donation received by the assessee towards the corpus as income of the assessee

Sudha Dhoot, Kolkata vs. AO Ward 40(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.268/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year. :2018-2019) Sudha Dhoot, Vs Assessing Officer Ward-40(4), 29B, Rabindra Sarani, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata Room No.10E, Wb-700001 Pan No. : Adwpd 2538 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2018-2019 2. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 55 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection In Condoning The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Of 55 Days Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. As The Notice Has Been Sent Through Rpad, Email & Also Through The Revenue & The Acknowledgement Of The Notice Having Been Served Through The Revenue By Rpad Is Available. As None Represented On Behalf

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

carry forward loss has been denied. A perusal of the assessment order shows that no intimation as required under the first proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act has been issued to the assessee. Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A). 6. I have ... noticed that the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act has been issued without issuing intimation as required under the first proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act, it is held that the intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act is unsustainable and the same stands quashed

Victoria Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:946/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Victoria Educational Trust, Ito, 62, 6Th Street, Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, S.R.P.Colony, Chennai. Peravallur, Chennai – 600 082. [Pan:Aabtv-0115-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 143(1)

facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in sustaining the adjustment made in terms of Section 143(1) of the Act in adding back a sum of Rs.63,53,306/- being the gross receipts as taxable total income of the appellant in the computation ... NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the disputed adjustment made was outside the purview of the scope of adjustment contemplated in Section 143(1) of the Act, there by vitiating the impugned adjustment made in the intimation order dated 02.06.2023. 4. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that

Devasakayam Aangilappalli Paripalana Sabai, Madurai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Madurai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:933/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2018-19 Devasakayam Aangilappalli Income Tax Officer, Paripalana Sabai, Vs. Exemptions Ward, No.11, Devasakayam Matriculation Madurai. Hr.Sec.School, Pasumalai, Madurai – 625 004. [Pan:Aaatd-0964-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Avm Kumaran, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Ward 19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 709/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:709/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Avm Kumaran, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 7, Avm Garden Studios, Vs. Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Non Corp Ward 19(1), Chennai – 600 026. Chennai. [Pan:Aagpk-5279-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Viswanathan, Ca (Virtual). प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Viswanathan, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Dr.Rangasamy Sudha, Erode vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1007/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1007/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-24 The Income-Tax Officer, Dr. Rangasamy Sudha, 448, Maragathavalli Hospital, Vs. Ward 1(1), Erode. E.V.N. Road, Erode – 638 009. [Pan:Ajcps-0749-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Manickasundaram, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. Manickasundaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 80T

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 257/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

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

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 256/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

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

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 255/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

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

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 254/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

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

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 253/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

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

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 252/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

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

Crystal Hatcheries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 251/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT-DR

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

Sonali Dhawan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3748/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun KaushalFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(c)

therefore, not a case where the TDS deducted has not been deposited. It was further submitted that as per the provisions of section 143(1)(c) of the Act, so long as the TDS is deducted even if not paid by the deductor, Coordinate Benches have gone ahead and have

Rose Trust, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 167BSection 234C

Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the levy of tax and surcharge at a higher rate while processing the Return under Section 143(1) of the Act by the learned Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC) (The Assessing Officer), (hereinafter referred to as "the AO"). It is submitted ... being heard and the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and also not in accordance with the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, the said adjustments may kindly be struck down/set aside. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

Gurmeet Singh Hora, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

ITA 360/RPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ीअ

Gurmeet Singh Hora, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

ITA 359/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ीअ

Gurmeet Singh Hora, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

ITA 358/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ीअ