← 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)

Bright Paints Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax - 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 6817/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali, SR. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14ASection 250Section 73

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM Bright

Pcg Jubilant Tradepharm LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

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

ITA 6783/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Mihir Naniwadekar (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali, SR. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM PCG

Aquakiosk India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1428/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2012-13 Aquakiosk India Private Limited Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1), Bh-2C, Munirka, New Delhi – 67 C.R. Building, (Pan: Aadca5448C) New Delhi (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Harish Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “A’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH

The Salur Girijan Co Op Marketing Society Limited, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 118/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(f)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

The Saluru Girijan Co Op Marketing Society Limited, Saluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 117/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(f)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य

Mount Carmel Educational Society, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 72/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mount Carmel Educational Society .......... Appellant Kanjiramkulam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695524 [Pan: Aabam3865A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Appellant By: Ms. Binisha Baby, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 30.121.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust Duly Registered U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 01.08.2017 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 Of The Act. The Said Return Of Income Was Processed By The Cpc U/S. 143(1) Of 2 Mount Carmel Educational Society The Act Vide Intimation Dated 25.03.2019 Denying Exemption U/S. 11 & Assessed The Total Income At Rs. 2,03,20,447/- On The Ground That Audit Report In The Prescribed Form 10B Was Not Filed Along With The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that the adjustment made by the CPC is beyond the scope of section 143(1) of the Act and filing of audit report within the prescribed time is only directory and not mandatory. However, the CIT(A), placing reliance

Malabar Regional Co Op Milk Producers Union Ltd, Kozhikode vs. ACIT, Circle (2)1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Malabar Regional Coop Milk Producers .......... Appellant Union Ltd (Milma) Peringolam, Kunnamangalam, Kozhikode-673571. Pan: Aaaam1011G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-2(1), Kozhikode. Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

1 Malabar Regional Coop Milk Producers Union Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Animesh Agarwal, Sikar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 290/JPR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025

Allahabad High Court was, whether in case of completed/unabated assessments, the AO would have jurisdiction to re-open the assessments made under section 143(1)(a) or 143(3) of the Act, 1961 and to reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income even found during the search

ITO (Exemption), Ward Vadodara, Vadodara vs. Mml Choudhry Charitbale & Education Trust, Hari Nagar

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

ITA 645/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

Adani Infrastructure Management Services Limited, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 580/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

duly disclosed in the Tax Audit Report filed with the return of income. The Centralized Processing Center (CPC), while processing the return under Section 143(1), disallowed the contribution by invoking Section 36(1 )(va) of the Act, treating the payment as delayed. The CPC considered this amount

Savita Bappa Jogdand, Pune vs. Income Tax Authority, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 953/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.953/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Savita Bappa Jogdand, V The Income Tax Dyansagar Society, Balajin S Authority, Pune. Ganeshnagar Nr.Indraprast, Pune Nashik Road, Medankarwadi Post, Chakan, Ta Khed, Dist. Pune – 410501. Maharashtra. Pan: Amypj7084P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Priyanka Tayade Rathi – Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Kochi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 06.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y.2021-22 Dated 10.12.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 28Section 43Section 43BSection 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

Bharat Shivaji Chavan, Sonarsiddhnagar vs. ITO Ward 5, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 876/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.876/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Shivaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, At Sonarsiddhnagar, Post S Ward-5, Sangli. Kowthali, Tal Atpadi, District Solapur, Kotali – 413101. Maharashtra. Pan: Auwpc0996M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)Section 69

basis that an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act has been passed when the assessment has been processed only under Section 143(1) of the Act, and also on the basis of judgment, which according to the AO is of Delhi High court, when in reality

District Probation & After Care Association Satara, Satara vs. ITO, Exemption Ward1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

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

Adpr & Associates, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nahsik

ITA 1885/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Payal R. DedhiaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)

applicable tax has been paid by the assessee after adding surcharge of 15%. However, the Ld. AO/ CPC while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) has levied surcharge at the maximum rate of 37% on the entire amount

Adpr & Associates, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

ITA 1884/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Payal R. DedhiaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)

applicable tax has been paid by the assessee after adding surcharge of 15%. However, the Ld. AO/ CPC while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) has levied surcharge at the maximum rate of 37% on the entire amount

Hreyansh Vasundhara Family Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1793/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1793/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Hreyansh Vasundhara Family Trust, S. No. 1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Yerwada, Pune – 411006 Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Pune Pan : Aabth8220Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-06-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara [“Addl./Jcit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year ("Ay") 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : "In The Fact & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -(A)2 Vadodara, Erred In Confirming The Variance In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Made By Cpc In Respect Of The Rate Of Surcharge & Erred: 1. In Not Adjudicating & Hence Confirming That The Ao Cpc Has Power To Vary The Rate Of Surcharge While Processing The Return U/S 143(1). 2. In Holding That In The Case Of The Appellant Provisions Of Section 167B Rws 2(29C) Are Applicable & Therefore The Appellant Is Subjected To Taxation At The Highest Slab Of Income Tax (Including Surcharge) As Applicable For The Given Ay Which Is 37% Surcharge In The Case Of The Appellant For The Given Ay.

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 167BSection 2

applicable tax has been paid by the assessee after adding surcharge of 15%. However, the Ld. AO/ CPC while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") has levied surcharge at the maximum rate of 37% on the entire amount

Anu Aga Family Discretionary Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 2

total income (excluding surcharge and cess) is Rs. 97,20,477/-. The Ld. AO/ CPC while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act levied surcharge at the maximum rate of 37% on the entire amount of tax as against 15% calculated and paid by the assessee. Subsequently

Saraj Dam, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Siliguri

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

ITA 867/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Saraj Dam,………………………….………..………Appellant Behind Siliguri Special Jail, 3, Netaji Subhash Road, Subhash Pally, Siliguri-734001, W.B. [Pan:Aclpd0742P] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…...Respondent Circle-1, Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Dist. Darjeeling-734010, W.B. Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, , Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 86

should have claimed the same as exempted income. As the mistake was apparent from record, the assessee preferred a rectification petition under section 143(1)/154 on 20.04.2022 but the same has not been entertained by the ld. Assessing Officer because of the pending of rectification petition mentioning error description

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Netai Bhadra, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2386/KOL/2024[2020]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 2386/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Income Tax Officer,…………………………..……Appellant Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 -Vs.- Netai Bhadra,…………………………………......Respondent 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -And- C.O. No. 8/Kol/2025 (In Ita No. 2386/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Netai Bhadra,…………………………………..Cross Objector 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

also filed a revised return of income on 18.09.2021 declaring total income at Rs.22,72,880/-. The said revised return was processed under section 143(1) by the CPC on 16.11.2021 determining a refund of Rs.2,21,260/-. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS

Vadamugam Kangayampalayam Primary Agri Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 1202/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

oraey arte after, ‘st -aariic, tag! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI ft aa aa faga vie