← 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)

Manoj Singh, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 830/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.829-832/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-2020 To 2022-2023) Manoj Singh, Vs Ito, Ward-40 (1), Kolkata 406/1, G. T.Road (South) Howrah, West Bengal-711103 Pan No. : Alpps 5330 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Addl.Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur, Dated 26.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023, Respectively. 2. Shri Sunil Surana, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Shankar Naskar, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. During The Course Of Hearing, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Without Condoning The Delay. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Was Pursuing Alternative Remedy By Filing Rectification Application U/S.154 Of The Act Before The Ao & The Same Has Not Been Disposed Off By The Ld.Ao, Therefore, The Assessee Could Not File The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Within The Prescribed Time Limit. It Was The Submission That During The Pendency Of The Rectification Application The Assessee Opted To File Appeals Against The 2

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन

Manoj Singh, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 829/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.829-832/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-2020 To 2022-2023) Manoj Singh, Vs Ito, Ward-40 (1), Kolkata 406/1, G. T.Road (South) Howrah, West Bengal-711103 Pan No. : Alpps 5330 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Addl.Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur, Dated 26.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023, Respectively. 2. Shri Sunil Surana, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Shankar Naskar, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. During The Course Of Hearing, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Without Condoning The Delay. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Was Pursuing Alternative Remedy By Filing Rectification Application U/S.154 Of The Act Before The Ao & The Same Has Not Been Disposed Off By The Ld.Ao, Therefore, The Assessee Could Not File The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A) Within The Prescribed Time Limit. It Was The Submission That During The Pendency Of The Rectification Application The Assessee Opted To File Appeals Against The 2

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन

Electromechanical Trading Pvt. Ltd., Fortuna Tower vs. ITO 5(3), Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 1066/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1066/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Electromechanical Trading Pvt. Ltd. …………………....Appellant 23A, Ns Road, 11Th Floor, Room No.53, Kol-1. [Pan: Adcpa8526G] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3), Kolkata……..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vijay Kr. Singhal, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2024 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 358 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.50,050/- Which Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68

filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 by declaring a total income of Rs.50,050/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for Scrutiny and notice under I.T.A. No.1066/Kol/2025 Electromechanical Trading Pvt. Ltd Sections 143

Bharat Hari Gupta, Kolkata, West Bengal vs. DCIT, Kolkata, West Bengal

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2688/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2688/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Bharat Hari Gupta..……………………..…………………....Appellant 7Ab, Bright Apartments, 7, Brigde Street, Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Aelpg3307H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Smt. Lalitha Del, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurugram [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Learned Ar Submitted That The Assessee Had Filed A Rectification Application Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Before The Assessing Officer. The Said Application Was Disposed Of By Passing An Order Under Section 154 Read With Section 143(1) Of The Act Dated 16.04.2025. As A Result Of The Rectification, The Returned Income Was Accepted & The Refund Has Also Been Credited To The Assessee'S Bank Account. In View Of The Above, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Dated 19.07.2025 Before The Bench Seeking Withdrawal Of The Appeal.

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Assessing Officer. The said application was disposed of by passing an order under Section 154 read with Section 143(1) of the Act dated 16.04.2025. As a result of the rectification, the returned income was accepted and the refund has also been credited

Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 20/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.17, 18, 19 & 20/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of New No. 40 (Old No. 23), Sarojini Income Tax, Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan:Aacck4534C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

under section 139 of the Act admitting total income at ₹.17,77,070/-. The 3 I.T.A. Nos.17 to 20/Chny/25 return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income as total income for the year under consideration. A search and seizure action under section

Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 19/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.17, 18, 19 & 20/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of New No. 40 (Old No. 23), Sarojini Income Tax, Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan:Aacck4534C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

under section 139 of the Act admitting total income at ₹.17,77,070/-. The 3 I.T.A. Nos.17 to 20/Chny/25 return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income as total income for the year under consideration. A search and seizure action under section

Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 18/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.17, 18, 19 & 20/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of New No. 40 (Old No. 23), Sarojini Income Tax, Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan:Aacck4534C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

under section 139 of the Act admitting total income at ₹.17,77,070/-. The 3 I.T.A. Nos.17 to 20/Chny/25 return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income as total income for the year under consideration. A search and seizure action under section

Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 17/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.17, 18, 19 & 20/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of New No. 40 (Old No. 23), Sarojini Income Tax, Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan:Aacck4534C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

under section 139 of the Act admitting total income at ₹.17,77,070/-. The 3 I.T.A. Nos.17 to 20/Chny/25 return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income as total income for the year under consideration. A search and seizure action under section

Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Delhi vs. AO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 3225/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3225/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac 341, Heritage Tower, Plot No. 1, Income Tax Officer, Sector-3, Dwarka, Ward-56(3), New Delhi-110078 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abppt7714C Assessee By: Sh. Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074785307(1) Dated 20.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Kumar TripathiFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

file perused. 3. I note at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the CPC’s impugned section 143(1) “processing” itself dated 13.10.2022 disallowing the assessee’s ESI/PF contribution of Rs.2,63,400/- which has been upheld in the lower appellate proceedings. This ... against the department that the above section 36(1)(va) disallowance of ESI/PF is a highly debatable issue to be rejected in section 143(1) “processing”, reading as under: “Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - This appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

Vindhya Trust, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanvindhya Trust, Vs. Dcit, Circle 49 (1), B – 60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Delhi. Naraina Industrial Estate, Delhi – 110 028. (Pan : Aaatv0303K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahender Gohel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 23.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 3, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Jcit (A)] Dated 12.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1 - Rate Of Tax: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Has Erred In Upholding Levy Of Tax At Flat Rate Of30%, Instead Of Normal Slab Rates Applicable In The Case Of The Appellant. The Learned Cit(A) & The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Association Of Persons (Aop)/Charitable Trust Not Claiming Benefits Of Section 11 Of The Act & Is Liable To Pay Tax At The Slab Rates Applicable In The Case Of An Individual, Etc. The Appellant Prays That The Learned Assessing Officer Be Directed To Re-Compute

For Appellant: Shri Mahender Gohel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 167BSection 234BSection 234C

erred in upholding levy of surcharge of Rs.13,12,510/- by the learned Assessing Officer, while processing the Return of Income under Section 143(1) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) and the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the Total Income of the appellant is within ... erred in upholding interest charged under the provisions of Section 234B and 234C of the Act, while processing the Return of Income under Section 143(1) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) and the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant has paid the advance taxes

Radhey Shyam Saini, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Pcit, Sh. Radhey Shyam Saini, H. No. 1174/334, Rohtak Ramlila Chowk, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Bxhps4356Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Rohtak’S Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062878555(1), Dated 18.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

individual. He filed his return for AY 2018-19 on 29.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e- assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim ... income from other sources and claimed deduction for 50% as per section 57(iv) of the 1961 Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. An application under section 264 was made claiming that by mistake the assessee treated the interest income as income from other