← 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)

Ranvijay Haldhar Singh, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appealate Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5430/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Tejas Sodha, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18

Sea Face Park Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5417/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22 Sea Face Park Co. Ito Ward 19(3)(1) Operative Housing Piramal Chambers Society Limited Mumbai- 400012. 50, Bhulabhai Desai Vs. Road, Maharashtra- 400026. Pan: Aaaas3577R Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

also eligible to claim the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, on 19.10.2022, the assessee received intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act from CPC. The deduction under Section 80P(2) (d) of the Act claimed by the assessee in its return of income

M/S Srimy Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4892/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Srimy Jewels Dcit Circle 4(3)(1), Private Limited Thrugh Mumbai. Mr. Subodh Modi, Director Of The Appellant Company Je-3010, Vs. Bhrat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. Pan: Aagcs0025G Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

Shree Bhairav Star Jewels Pvt. Ltd., and has taken accommodation entry to that extent. 2.3. The Ld.AO thus issued notice under section 143(1) of the act, in compliance to which, the assessee filed various details and written submissions challenging the issuance of notice under M/s. Srimy Jewels Private Limited

ACIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Clear Secured Services Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3758/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. PRABHASH SHANKAR, AM Assistant

Chheda Heights Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3462/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ISection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

above, the return of income was furnished within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1). Thus, the entire disallowance was beyond the scope of Section 143(1) itself. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the CPC and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and assessee is entitled ... held by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case prior to A.Y.2021-22, no such adjustment could have been made within the scope of Section 143(1). Accordingly, the adjustment made by the CPC is deleted for both the years. Chheda Heights Co. op Hsg. Soc. Ltd. 5. In the result, both

Chheda Height Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3461/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ISection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

above, the return of income was furnished within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1). Thus, the entire disallowance was beyond the scope of Section 143(1) itself. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the CPC and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and assessee is entitled ... held by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case prior to A.Y.2021-22, no such adjustment could have been made within the scope of Section 143(1). Accordingly, the adjustment made by the CPC is deleted for both the years. Chheda Heights Co. op Hsg. Soc. Ltd. 5. In the result, both

Pfizer Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax- 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3173/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2022-23
For Respondent: Shri Pratik Poddar & Shri Shreyas
Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 234Section 43B

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Intimation Order, dated 29/07/2022, issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'] for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. The Appellant has raised following grounds ... letter dated 04/01/2023 [copy placed at page 216-217 of the Paper- Book]. 6. Subsequently an Intimation Order, dated 29/07/2023, was issued under Section 143(1) of the Act whereby the following additions/disallowances were made to the returned income of the Assessee on account of: (a) rejection of claim

Bank of Maharashra, Pune vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 682/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan and Mrs. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40A(7)

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

Roxiler Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward5(4), Pune

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

ITA 2078/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. Vaze and Shri Amod S. Vaze – AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai – Add.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80ISection 80J

ground number 1 becomes academic in nature however we are adjudicating it. 5.1. To appreciate the legal position we have reproduced the relevant section 143(1) of the Act as under : 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under ... such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction;(emphasis supplied) 5.2.Thus, section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act has clearly directed the AO to disallow any Incorrect Claim made by the assessee which is apparent from

Desai Infra Projects (I) Private Limited, Pune vs. CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 1852/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 288Section 44ASection 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

same by observing as under : “14. I have considered the facts of the case and the submission made by the appellant. As per section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, the adjustment on account of an incorrect claim, if the same is apparent can be made while processing ... u/s.801A(4) of the Act. Since Form 10CCB was not filed within time, therefore this situation is covered by Explanation (a)(ii) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC falls within the provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly

Navjyoti Farming Private Limited, Belapur vs. ITO, Ward -3, Panvel

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

ITA 1020/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

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

Rishi Khare, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 827/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.827/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Rishi Khare Vs. Ito, Ward-12(6) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Amjpk4465G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 45 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Informed Of The Issuance Of The Order Dated 13.05.2024 By The Ld.Cit(A) & He Was Under The Genuine Belief That The Matter

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Loveen Babu Vuppala, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

petitioner admitted the fact that he has filed his return in India on August 10,, 2019. The intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on March 26, 2020. However, he has filed the return without Form 67 which is required to be filed under Rule 128 to claim the benefit ... same came to be filed on February 2, 2021 which was well before the completion of the assessment year. The intimation under Section 143(1) was issued from the Centralized Processing Centre only on March 26, 2021. 10. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the procedure under

Jatan Raj Jain, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1715/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Jatan Raj Jain Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(3), (Prop. Sri Kalyani Electro Hyderabad. World), Secunderabad. Pan : Abapj3416C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Ottapalam Taluk Pravasi Welfare Co-Operative Society Limited, Palakkad vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 588/COCH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ottapalam Taluk Pravasi Welfare .......... Appellant Co-Operative Society Ltd. P.O. Mezhathur, Ottapalam Palakkad 679534 [Pan: Aaao7715K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -2, Palakkd Appellant By: Shri Alan Dev, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Alan Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM Assessment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Kochi vs. Maj Hospital, Edapally

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 576/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit (Exemptions) .......... Appellant 4Th Floor, Aayakr Bhavan Old Railway Station Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Maj Hospital .......... Respondent Church Road, Edapally Ernakulam 682024 [Pan: Aabtm0661Q]

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Jose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM Assessment

Larson Cheriakkara Lonappan, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Thrissur

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

ITA 313/COCH/2024[AY 2015-20165]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3, Jaipur, Jpr

In the result, Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is also allowed and order declared to be bad in law, as the same violated the Principle of Natural Justice

ITA 420/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyaldinesh Kumar Chaurasia, M/S. Mahendra Gargieya & Associates, 537-539, Gargieya’S 5Th Floor, Mahima Trinity, Near Jyoti Rao Phule College, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302 019. Pan No.: Abapc 0810D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle - 3, Jaipur – 302 005. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Ram Shran Katta, 257, Katta Street, Jain Mandir Wali Gali, Durgapura, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 623/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 50C

assessment proceedings were pending for AYs 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07. For the said AYs, assessments had already been made under Section 143(1) of the Act. Further Hon’ble Delhi High Court summarizing the legal position qua assessments under section 153A held as under:- “Although Section

Ram Sharan Katta, 257, Katta Street, Jain Mandir Wali Gali, Durgapura, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(4), Jaipur, Ward-6(4)

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 622/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 50C

assessment proceedings were pending for AYs 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07. For the said AYs, assessments had already been made under Section 143(1) of the Act. Further Hon’ble Delhi High Court summarizing the legal position qua assessments under section 153A held as under:- “Although Section