← 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)

Sri Annamalai Educational Society, Krishnagiri vs. Addl-JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2596/CHNY/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2595 & 2596/Chny/2024 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. Sri Annamalai Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society, Exemptions Ward, Soolamalai Medu, Salem. Periyapanamutlu Village, Anchoor Post, Krishnagiri – 635 001. [Pan: Aahts 6428B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ()*थ"/Respondent) Shri Purushothaman, Ca & अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shyam Sundar, Ca & Shri Rajesh Jain, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) )*थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar, CA &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

would have expired on 31.03.2015 which was just few days before the return was processed on 12.03.2015 under Section 143(1) of the Act. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Formica India Division, Bombay, Burma Trading Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and others, 1995 Supp ... aside the Impugned Common Order dated 30.12.2019 and remit the case back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order deleted under Section 143(1) of the Act. 27. These appeals stand disposed of with the above observations. The substantial questions of law are partly answered in favour

Sri Annamalai Educational Society, Krishnagiri vs. Addl-JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2595/CHNY/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2595 & 2596/Chny/2024 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. Sri Annamalai Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society, Exemptions Ward, Soolamalai Medu, Salem. Periyapanamutlu Village, Anchoor Post, Krishnagiri – 635 001. [Pan: Aahts 6428B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ()*थ"/Respondent) Shri Purushothaman, Ca & अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shyam Sundar, Ca & Shri Rajesh Jain, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) )*थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar, CA &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

would have expired on 31.03.2015 which was just few days before the return was processed on 12.03.2015 under Section 143(1) of the Act. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Formica India Division, Bombay, Burma Trading Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and others, 1995 Supp ... aside the Impugned Common Order dated 30.12.2019 and remit the case back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order deleted under Section 143(1) of the Act. 27. These appeals stand disposed of with the above observations. The substantial questions of law are partly answered in favour

The Gate of Hope Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward-2, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 80G

assessment order is passed when the return is merely processed under no assessment order is passed when the return is merely processed under Section 143(1) and an intimation to that effect is sent to the assessee. tion 143(1) and an intimation to that effect is sent ... distinction between an order passed under section 143(3) and the order passed under section 143(3) and the intimation issued under section 143(1) and hence it is not permissible to intimation issued under section 143(1) and hence it is not permissible to intimation issued under section 143

The Gate of Hope Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO(E), Ward-2, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1372/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 80G

assessment order is passed when the return is merely processed under no assessment order is passed when the return is merely processed under Section 143(1) and an intimation to that effect is sent to the assessee. tion 143(1) and an intimation to that effect is sent ... distinction between an order passed under section 143(3) and the order passed under section 143(3) and the intimation issued under section 143(1) and hence it is not permissible to intimation issued under section 143(1) and hence it is not permissible to intimation issued under section 143

Madan Kumar Sivinigari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 2606/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

provision of section 90/90A of the Act. 3. However, the CPC while processing the return as per the provision of section 143(1) of the Act disallowed the claim of the assessee for foreign tax credit as Form-67 prescribed under rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules

Doraiswami Rajagopalan, Bangalore vs. DCIT-Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2281/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: None [WS]For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 112Section 112ASection 143(1)Section 154

redemption of Market Linked Debenture. The assessee on the impugned LTCG paid tax @ 10%. 4. The CPC in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act levied the tax on impugned LTCG @ 20% and raised demand of additional tax liability. The assessee against the intimation order filed rectification application ... which was rejected by the CPC. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. 6. The assessee before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC contended that the long-term capital gain on the sale of listed

Income Tax Officer, Vijayapur vs. Vikram Dalichand Bandari, Vijayapur

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1390/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Sudheendra B.R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

ITA No.1390/Bang/2024 & CO No.32/Bang/2024 Vikram Dalichand Bhandari, Vijayapura IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

Kamlesh Gupta and Sons HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4080/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Kamlesh Gupta & Sons Huf Ito-19(2)(2) 95-C, Mittal Towers Piramal Chamber Nariman Point, Churchgate Vs. Lalbaug, Lower Mumbai-400 021. Parel, Mumbai-12. Pan : Aaehk4734K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Asif KarmaliFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Mantri
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

completed under section 143(3) of the Act, but in the reasons recorded, it was mentioned that the same was completed under section 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR of appellant has relied on several cases-law before the Bench and pleaded that the reopening of assessment should

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Jatin Jayantilal Desai, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purpose and CO filed by the assessee become infructuous

ITA 3838/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148aSection 250Section 253

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & HON’BLE SHRI

Rahul Jabarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Assistant. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 3525/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanrahul Jabarmal Jain Vs. Acit 19(3) 1204/B 12 Floor, Pratiksha Tower, R. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, S. Nimkar Marg, Mumbai Central, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 008 Pan: Aempj8236K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Indus Education Society, Lakhanpur Kanput vs. DCIT, Exemp., Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 671/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Harish Chand Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bn-81, West Shalimar Bagh, Ward-34(1), Delhi – 110 088. Delhi. Pan: Aeupg0010Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

The New India Multi Purpose Co-Op Society Limited, Mapusa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Panaji

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

ITA 244/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 244/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) The New India Multi Vs Ito-Ward-1(4), Aayakar Bhavan, Purpose Co-Op Society Ltd, . Plot.No 5, Edc C/2,Ug Floor, Saidanha Complex,Patto Plaza, Business Towers,Near Panaji.-403001, Court Circle, Bardez Goa. Mapusa-403607 . Goa. Pan .No. Aadat8151H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri. Amogh Arlekar.Ar Revenue By Shri.Manikandan.S.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Addl/ Jcit(A) Kolkata Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Act. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Shree Ambika Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1329/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1329/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Ambika Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigarsheti Sahakri Patsanstha S Ward-10(1), Pune. Maryadit, Khodad, Junnar, Pune – 410504. Pan: Aadas2545Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2021-22 Dated 08.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 Registry Informed That There Is A Delay 35 Days. We Have Carefully Gone Through The Affidavit & Notice That On Account Of

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

ld.Counsel for that assessee stated that the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) filed against the adjustment made by CPC in the order under section 143(1)(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was delayed by 299 days ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and the adjustment made towards ... Rs.1,00,97,288/- has been stated to be an amount eligible for deduction in the processing sheet under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. However, on Page 2 of the CPC order, the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) has been denied. There is an anomaly

Anantapur District Co-Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited, Anantapur vs. ITO., Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 1142/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.आआआ.आआ /Ita No.1142/Hyd/2024 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Anantapur District Co- Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Anantapur. Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited, Anantapur. Pan:Aaeaa0133B (Appellant) (Respondent) आआआआआआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Assessee Dr. D. Harish Chandra Rama, Ca By: आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of 24/02/2025 Hearing: आआआआआ आआ 04/03/2025 आआआआआ/Pronouncement: आआआआ/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantapur District Co-Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.09.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Association Of Persons (“Aop”), Not Filed Any Return Of Income (“Roi”) U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). From The Information

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69ASection 80P

operative Housing Society Limited (supra), the claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was disallowed through intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and the rectification application filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Act was rejected. Appeal filed against the order under ... also rejected on the ground that the disallowance under section 80P(2) of the Act in the original assessment order under section 143(1) of the Act, but not under section 154 of the Act and, therefore, the assessee cannot challenge the order under section 154 of the Act, directly

Landis + Gyr Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 573/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Shah &For Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 28

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA 02. BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 12(1), Kolkata vs. Mercury Solutions Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1530/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जॉजज

M/S. Indian Chain Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1086/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM] I.T.A. No

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Aver Software Technologies Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4333/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 69

return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 on 17/08/2009 declaring total income of INR.23,69,950/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the Assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice, dated 26/03/2014, under Section

Prakash Metal Indistries, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer 5(3), Pune

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

ITA 1796/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1796/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tanaji ShelkeFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1796/PUN/2024

Usha J. Shah, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Kolhapur

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

ITA 239/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL