← 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)

Sudhir Popatrao Chaudhari, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 2438/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2438/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sudhir Popatrao Chaudhari, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2 B, Sr. No.260, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Suman Bunglow, Dattatray Nagar, Amrutdham, Panchvati, Nashik – 422003. Pan: Afzpc5605F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Dilip Bari – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 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)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2017-18; Dated 15.10.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 69A Towards Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits By Holding That The Cash Deposits Of Rs.19,02,000 Made In Bank Account During Demonetization

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

ld.AR : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee had filed Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act. During the scrutiny proceedings, Assessee had explained the source of cash deposits to ITA No.2438/PUN/2024 [A] the Assessing Officer. Ld.AR submitted that ... ld.CIT(A). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Assessee had filed Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act, declaring total of Rs.7,13,420/-. Case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny on account of cash deposit. It is observed

Jsw Minerals Trading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6137/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms.Deepa Khare,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, (CIT DR)
Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234B

circular as under - The return of income for AY 2021-22 has been filed on 11.03.2022 i.e. before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act while filing the return and has calculated and paid

M/S. the Metropolitan Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 3716/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S. The Metropolitan Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 23(2)(1), Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai, C.26/27, Block-E, The Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Metropolitan Prem.Co-Op. 400 012 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaaat8898E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs. Rupal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee is a co-operative society and filed the return under section 139(1) of the Act. During the processing of return under section 143(1), the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income received

Krishna Gopal Diwvedi HUF, Thane vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, in view of our judgment in ITA no

ITA 3482/MUM/2024[AY 2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2022-23 & Assessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Ms. Kshipra Singhvi, CA a/wFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Shrivastava, Sr. A.R
Section 115BSection 250

conditions are satisfied: "i) The return of income for relevant assessment year has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in item (e) of "Filing Status" in "Part

Krishna Gopal Diwvedi HUF, Thane vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, in view of our judgment in ITA no

ITA 3452/MUM/2024[AY 2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2022-23 & Assessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Ms. Kshipra Singhvi, CA a/wFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Shrivastava, Sr. A.R
Section 115BSection 250

conditions are satisfied: "i) The return of income for relevant assessment year has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in item (e) of "Filing Status" in "Part

Shree Revanasiddeshwara Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Rampur, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bagalkot

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

ITA 1740/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

undisputed fact that the assessee in this case filed its return of income beyond the due date/extended due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80P of the Act due to the restriction under section

Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1661/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1661/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 90

Credit and also filed Form 67. Since the assessee filed Form 67 belatedly and not along with the return as specified under section 139(1) of the Act the claim for Foreign Tax Credit was denied. 3. Identical issue came up before the coordinate bench of the Tribunal

M/S. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5495/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumararvind Bansal, Vs. Ito, 15, Second Floor, Sainik Ward-44(1), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpb8185E

For Appellant: Sr. Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149ASection 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur vs. Grand Motors, Raipur

ITA 544/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Grand Motors, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Lodhi Para Chowk, Pandri, Raipur Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aagfg8524P

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT- DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी रिवश सूद, "ाियक सद" एवं

Young Women'S Christian Association, Kozhencherry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 613/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Young Women'S Christian Association .......... Appellant Kozhencherry P.O., Pathanamthitta 689641 [Pan: Aaaay3019Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Thiruvalla Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.01.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 03.05.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Society Registered Under The Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. It Is Also Duly Registered U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 On 31.05.2021 Declaring Income Of Rs. 46,100/-. The Said Return Of Income Was Processed By The Cpc Vide Intimation Dated 30.11.2021 At A Total Income Of Rs. 25,48,381/- On The Ground That The Appellant Had Failed To File The 2 Young Women'S Christian Association Return Of Income Within The Due Date Prescribed U/S. 139(1) Of The Act & Also The Prescribed Audit Report In Form 10B.

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12ASection 139(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2020-21 Young Women

The Manoh Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., Village Manoh, Distt Hamirpur vs. ITO, Ward, Hamirpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 799/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has sustained the said action of the CPC/JAO.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Patiyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Addl. CIT DR
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80P

claiming deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act, the return of income has to be fled before due date as specified under section 139(1) and 139(4) however it is a matter of fact that Sub- Clause (v) of Section 143(1)(a) was amended by the Finance ... that in order to claim the deduction under section 80P, the return of income has to be filed within the specified time under section 139(1) of the Act and since, in the instant case, the return has been filed on 27/12/2018, the assessee is not eligible for deduction

Akash Jain, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 32(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2248/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.2248/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Akash Jain………………………………..……………………….....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aoipj6380C] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File Any Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18. An Information Was Received That The Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs.89,50,000/- In His Bank Account During Demonetization Period. Thereafter, The Case Of Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Requesting Thereon To File Return. In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Submitted Return Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,37,850/-. Subsequently, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

ITA 3/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2008-09
For Appellant: \nShri Rajesh Ramchandra DakeFor Respondent: \nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Rs.37,81,904/- as against the income of Rs.37,81,900/- as declared previously by filing his original return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act on March 31, 2010, which was initially processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter resulted into passing the assessment

Renu Sanewal As Legal Heir of Rajinder Singh Sanewal, Plot No vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Rohtak

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1042/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Aarone Developers Private Vs. Dcit Circle – 1(1) Limited, 6Th Floor, Select New Delhi City Walk Mall, A-3, District Centre, Saket New Delhi-110017 Pan No. Aaacv0276C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

M/S Varsha Construction, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 5/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Varsha Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Second Floor-25, 26, Millenium Plaza, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Raipur-492 001, Chhattisgarh Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G.. Pan: Aaefv 8399 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी रिवश सूद, "ाियक सद" एवं

Taliparamba Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. C. 1007, Perumba vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kannur

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

ITA 219/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

other hand, the learned Sr. DR submits that the appellant had neither filed the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act nor made any claim in the return of income for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. In view of the decision ... were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return can be under Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under Section 80A(5), the claim

Paras Kuhad, Jaipur vs. ACIT - 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 1004/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

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

Shiva Speciality Yarns Ltd., Ludhiana vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CA and Ms. Naina Gaba Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80

view that business loss of Rs.19,26,39,748/- is not allowable to the assessee because the return under Section 139(1) was not filed within the time limit provided in Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act. The AO further observed that as per Section

Mustak Rajjak Kapade, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ratnagiri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 889/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.889/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mustak Rajjak Kapade, V The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Bipin Shaha, 1756, Jutica, S Ward-1,Ratnagiri. Teli Ali, Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Bpzpk7653G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha – Ar Shri Akhilesh Srivastava –Addl.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025 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)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2012-13; Dated 27.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.4,00,000/- Pertaining To Cash Deposits In The Month Of October, 2011 & Such Addition Made By Ld.Ao Is Merely On Basis Of Guess Work & Surmise. The Ld.Cit(A) & The Ld.Ao Erred In Appreciating The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee In Respect Of Such Cash Deposit & Made An Addition Which Is Against The Provisions & Spirit Of The Act. The Said Addition Be Deleted & The Assessee Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

have heard both the parties and perused the records. Admittedly, assessee had not filed Return of Income for the A.Y.2012-13 under section 139(1) of the Act. Assessee filed Return of Income only after issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. In the return of income, assessee declared

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad