← All Phrases

“Section 139(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(1)7,818 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)

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.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Judgments citing Section 139(1)

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara | बनाम Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Pan: Aampl 3903 F Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJКОТ BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

BATHS AAS OT, ASTHMA SATA | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

given under section 22(1)/22(2)/34 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2) / 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 No. or have without reasonable cause failed ... furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. dated have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4) / 23(2) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The Actit, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

ITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15) Pankaj C Lodhiya आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट

Smt. Kailashben Lavjibhai Daliya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 367/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.367/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Smt. Kailashben Lavjibhai Daliya, Vs. The Ito, K-701, River View Heights, Pedar Road, Ward – 3(3)(3), Mota Varachha, Surat - 394101 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiapp7993D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2025

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

However, we find that the said return was not filed within the 5 ITA No.367/SRT/2025/AY.2017-18 Kailashben Lavjibhai Daliya due date as per section 139(1) of the Act and was filed much later on 18.03.2017 after the demonetization period. Further, the appellant has claimed opening cash in hand of Rs.25

Nagesh Babu Valiveti, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer (Internal Taxation), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Bles & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.9/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) Nagesh Babu Valiveti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-International Taxation, Pan: Accpv7063J Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 30/04/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीयअिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ, िवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVN” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी िवजय पाल राव, उपा"य

S N D P Yogam Kozhencherry Union, Pathanamthitta vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 244/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(24)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA Nos. 243 & 244/Coch/2025 Assessment Years

S N D P Yogam Kozhencherry Union, Pathanamthitta vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 243/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(24)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA Nos. 243 & 244/Coch/2025 Assessment Years

Sree Narayana Public, Karunagapally vs. Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

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

ITA 238/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Narayana Public School .......... Appellant Pavumba, P.O., Karunagapplly 690574 [Pan: Aants1510Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Alappuzha .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 2

found with the object of running a school. No regular return of income for AY 2017-18 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed, However, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Alappuzha (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information

Asharaf, Mannanchery vs. Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

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

ITA 235/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Asharaf .......... Appellant Bismillah Manzil, Mannancherry, Alappuzha 688538 [Pan: Bagpa7886R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -1 & Tps, Alappuzha

For Appellant: Shri Bijumon Antony, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44A

that the appellant is an individual carrying on the business of pains and hardware. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2017-18. Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Mustufamiya Hussenmiyan Shaikh, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1889/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AR and Shri Alay Anil Kshatriya, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69

ITA No.1888 & 1889/Ahd/2024 DCIT vs. Mustufamiya Hussenmiya Shaikh Page 1 of 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Mustufamiya Hussenmiyan Shaikh, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1888/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AR and Shri Alay Anil Kshatriya, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69

ITA No.1888 & 1889/Ahd/2024 DCIT vs. Mustufamiya Hussenmiya Shaikh Page 1 of 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH

Pune Zilha Madhyawati Sakakak Pune, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pune Zilla Madhyawati V The Income Tax Officer, Sakakak, S Ward-6(3), Pune. 92 Ranjan Co-Op Society, Shukrawar Peth, Shukrawar Peth S.O., Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatp6962E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Dhavalkumar Dhulappa Gat, Bangalore vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, New Delhi

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

ITA 2243/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 54

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

M/S. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2453/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2453/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 M/S. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd.,……...………Appellant S.S. Chambers, 5, C.R. Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aabcb1875A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sujay Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 30Th, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234B

section 115BAA. The assessee forgot to file form 10IC within the due date of filing the return of income as specified under section 139(1). The said eturn was processed under section 143(1) on 24.08.2022 whereby the benefit of provision of section 115BAA was denied because the form 10IC ... which is the prerequisite to claim benefit of section 115BAA was not filed within the due date as specified under section 139(1). Moreover, tax was computed at the rate of 30% instead of 25% 2 M/s. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd. through the turnover of the assessee-company

Dr. G. Athmalingam Medical and Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 611/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P.Guruprasad, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

CBDT circular condoned the delay in filling Form 10B, only in those cases where return was filled within the time provided in section 139(1) . 5. | We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The CPC in the intimation u/s 143(1

J Ray Mcdermott Engineering Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

appreciating the fact that the return of income was filed by the Appellant on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the said order. 11. That on the facts, and circumstances of the case

The Pavagada Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limtied, Kolor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 1960/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL