← 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)

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Kamatwade vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 915/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.915 & 916/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 15.02.2023, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act Dated 19.01.2022 & 20.01.2022 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. Since Issue Involved Is

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(10)

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Vizag Seaport Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 383/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Apr 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 383/Viz/2017 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, Administrative Block, Circle-5(1), S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530035. (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) [Pan :Aabcv2484K] अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Fenil A Bhatt, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : /04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Pers. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri Fenil A Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्िूरु आर एल रेड्डी

Pragya Traders (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

ITA 521/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant

G.S. Dream Home LLP, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 24/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Shri Namdev Samaj Tank Shastriya Vikas Samiti and Shodh Sansthan, New Housing Board Kishangarh vs. ITO Exemption, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 776/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80G

AJMER "8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. While processing the return of income under the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is expected to carry on adjustment in respect of items which are prima facie inadmissible. In the present

Shri. Ramesh Bhat, Mangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Mangalore

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

ITA 232/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250

ITA No.232/Bang/2024 Ramesh Bhat, Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 858/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Pankaj Bansal, Vs. Acit, 103B, The Aralias, Dlf Central Cirle-2, Gold Link, Dlf City, Faridabad Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Anhpb5602R Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Parth Singhal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 44A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Shri Sahib Dayal Ji Sulahkul Satsang Trust, Ambala vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambala

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

ITA 428/CHANDI/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)

impugned order, the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 11 has been denied by CPC, Bangalore in terms of intimation under section 143(1) which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 5. As per Ld. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi, the assessee has filed the return ... after the due date and hence there was a delay in filing the Form 10B and accordingly, the action of the AO/CPC under section 143(1) was upheld. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi has referred to the CBDT Circular No. 19/2022 dt. 30/09/2022 wherein the due date for filing

Madhav Prasad Priyamvada Birla Apex Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 536/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Madhav Prasad Priyamvada Birla Apex Charitable Trust,.……………………..….Appellant Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaatm7631F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Exemptions, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S. Datta, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 09, 2024 O R D E R

Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44A

appeal or before. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(1) as well as of the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-13, Mumbai submitted that the very foundation of both these orders are based on wrong assumption

Surinder Films(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1360/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surinder Films (P) Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Circle-3(1), Kolkata Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aancs0075K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. (A) For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Re-Opening Proceedings U/S 147 Which Was Without Jurisdiction & As Such, Not Sustainable In The Eyes Of Law. (B) For That The Purported Approval Granted By The Principal Cit - 1, Kolkata U/S 151, If Any, Does Not Fulfill The Requirements Of Law Thereby Vitiating The Entire Proceedings. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The A.O. Of Rs. 30,00,000/- On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Mirabelle Tradecom Pvt Ltd. U/S 68. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

company was engaged in the business Films and distribution of rights. The said case was processed under section 143(1) on 21/02/2013 by the CPC, Bangalore. The said case was not selected for regular scrutiny under section 143(3) for the instant year. 2. In this case, a credible information ... assessment as stipulated under section 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed under section 143(1) of the Act. In view of the above, provision of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case

ACIT, Cent Circle-1, Trichy vs. M/S Mangal & Mangal, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 511/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. Nlay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक

Ramnath Buildhome, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 746/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Vikas Kappor, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 77/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 90

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

Meenakshi Ventures and Holdings India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Meenakshi Ventures & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Holdings India Private Ward – 16(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Plot No.119, Meenkashi, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Telangana – 500033. Pan : Aagcm4362C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sai Sari Konda, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sari Konda, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 115Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 2Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Mode) BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment

Swarup Kumar Roy, Siliguri vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 118/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)

residing. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has reproduced Section 143(1) and thereafter observed that the assessee had reflected an amount of Rs.5,62,192/- being income from house property in schedule of house property ... return of income, which was not included in the total income of the appellant. He further observed that under section 143(1), only limited exercise of verification can be made and error committed by the assessee in the schedule of income tax return form cannot be rectified

R.M. Autolink Private Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore, Bangalore

ITA 409/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 R.M.Autolink Private Dcit Cpc Bangalore, Limited, Bangalore बनाम/ 238-A, Zone I, M.P.Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaccr9967Q Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, C. A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2024

Section 143(1)Section 253(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Income Tax Officer Ncw 19(4), Chennai vs. Chengam Durga, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1491/CHNY/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1491/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Smt. Chengam Durga बनाम Non-Corporate Ward-19(4) 50, Kasi Estate, Ashok Nagar, / Vs. Chennai. Jafferkhanpet, Chennai-600 083. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Achpd-0525-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri K.R.Sudersan (Ca) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri K.R.Sudersan (CA) -Ld. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Spectrum Foods Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

present case no notice under section 143(2) was issued indicating that the income declared in the return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the principle of change of opinion that prevents the AO from reopening of the assessment is not applicable to this case

Amit Trivedi, Bikaner vs. ITO Ward-1, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 154

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

Kalattar Singh, Ambala vs. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 453/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Lovnish Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surinder Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69C

case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income amounting to Rs. 3,43,890/- which was processed under section 143(1) and thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify high value of cash withdrawls during the year under consideration. Subsequently