← 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)

Govardhan Naidu Gummalla, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 169/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.169 & 170/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Shri Govardhan Naidu Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Gummalla, Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Actpg9082B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-12 Hyderabad Dated 09/02/2023 & Pertains To A.Ys 2018-19 & 2019-20 Respectively. Since Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

ITA Nos 169 and 170 of 2023 Govardhan Naidu Gummala आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME

Colo Colour Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 6(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 817/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd., Ito-Ward-6(2)(1), 1St Floor, Dadar Departmental Stores, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.C. Jawale Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabcc 3349 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Krishnakumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 197Section 40

during the year, and the same is not paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income specified under section 139(1). the due date of filing of return of income specified under section 139(1). the due date of filing of return of income specified ... under section 139(1). However, no disallowance shall be However, no disallowance shall be made even if assessee has not made even if assessee has not deducted the tax at source from any sum paid to a payee, if following deducted the tax at source from any sum paid

Udaysingh Shankarrao Patil, Kavane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1658/PUN/2024[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1658/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

case are that the appellant is an individual, no regular return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 under the provisions of section 139(1) was filed. Based on the information that the appellant made a deposit of Rs.27,40,000/- in the Bank of India, Chuye Karveer, 2 Kolhapur

Abid Ali Khan Educational Trust, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.457/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Abid Ali Khan Educational Dcit Trust Vs. Exemption Hyderabad Circle-1(1) [Pan : Aaata4256G] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Mohd Shoeb, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/08/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25/09/2024

For Appellant: Mohd Shoeb, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

assessee whose accounts are required to be audited is the date one month before the due date for furnishing the return under section 139(1) of the Act as per the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act read with proviso of Rule 12(2) of the Income ... requirement of filing Form 10/10B is merely directory in nature and failure to furnish the same before the due date prescribed in section 139(1) of the Act cannot be so fatal as to deny the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act, especially when such Form

Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift Societ Limited, Bapatla vs. Income-Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Bapatla

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

ITA 321/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 321/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Thrift Society Limited, Ward-1, Bapatla. Bapatla. Pan: Aaaab6442N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 69A

also initiated penalty proceeding U/s. 271F of the Act for non furnishing of return of income within the stipulated time as provided in section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act. Subsequently, notice U/s. 142(1) was issued along with the detailed questionnaires. However, there was no compliance with

State Board of Technical Education and Training Ap, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 147/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 147/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) State Board Of Technical Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Education & Training Ap, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aawas9250P Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीयअिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ, िवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"ी, "याियक

Premier Irrigation Adritee Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1521/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1521/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Premier Irrigation Adritee Pvt. Ltd. ....…………….......…....………....Appellant 17/1C, Alipore Road, Niharika, Kolkata-700027. [Pan: Aafcm4800Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 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. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Impugned Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Summarily Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Company For Alleged Non-Compliance Of The Notices Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case Since He Did Not Adjudicate Each Of The Grounds Of Appeal The Facts For Which Were Available To Him In The Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer & The Statement Of Facts Filed By The Appellant Assessee. 2. That The Impugned Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) On 9H January 2024 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant

Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

Income Tax Act, 1961, although admittedly such amount as deposited within the due date of furnishing the return of income prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act and as reported in the Tax Audit report under section 44AB of the Act. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred ... Assessing Officer in not giving full credit of TDS as claimed by the Appellant Company in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act and reflected in the 26AS of the Appellant Company. 8. That the Ld. CITA), NFAC erred in confirming the action

Kodanchery Panchayath Vanith Co-Operative Society Ltd No.D- 2853, Kozhikode vs. Ward 2(3) Kozhikode, Kozhikode

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 845/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhkodanchery Panchayath Vanitha The Income Tax Officer - 2(3) Co-Op. Society Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Kodanchery P.O. Vs. Mananchira Kozhikode 673580 Kozhikode 673001 [Pan: Aadak5584] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh

Adat Farmers Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(1), Thrisssur

In the result, the assessee’s former appeal ITA No

ITA 335/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh

Tavinjal Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward 1, Wayanad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 321/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhthavinjal Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Thalapuzha P.O. Ward - 1(4), Kalpetyta Vs Wayanad 670664 Wayanad 673122 [Pan: Aadat2035N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 2Section 22Section 56Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(4)Section 80P(5)

action disallowing assessee’s sec.80P deduction claim. 3. We find that there is no such condition in section 80A(5) regarding compliance of section 139(1)’s “due” date as the relevant condition stipulates to this effect came u/s.80AC w.e.f. 01.04.2018 and afterwards. So far as the Revenue’s claim

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal vs. Indus Education and Research Institute, Raipur

ITA 177/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Asian Earth Movers, Bellary vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Authorgen Technologies Private Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 541/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 541/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Authrogen Technologies Vs. The Pcit, बनाम Chandigarh-1, Private Limited, Chandigarh C-203, 8Th Floor, World Tech Power, Industrial Area, Phase Viii, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadca0494Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri K M Gupta, Advocate & Shri Jaskaran Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K M Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Pradipkumar Arvindbhai Kothari, Botad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(10), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 889/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K Das, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

filing the return for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 was August 5, 2017, but the assessee failed to file the return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer issued several notices of hearing, which remained uncompiled with. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under

Yogesh Nandalal Chande, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward-1, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

contention that Form no.67, was not filed on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income under section 139(1). 3 Yogesh Nandlal Chande ITA no.402/Nag./2024 The assessee being unsuccessful before the Assessing Officer, filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. Meanwhile, the assessee ... Income Tax Rules, 1962, Form no.67, has to be filed on/or before the due date of furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act thereby dismissing assessee’s appeal directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of TDS credit

Shraddha Sakh Sahkari Sanstha, Barwani vs. The ITO, Sendhwa

ITA 109/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 25Section 250Section 80P

claimed under section 80P of the Act was disallowed since return of Income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Against this order, the society filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the disallowance of deduction claimed under section ... under section 80P of the Act simply for the reason that return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act more so when return of income was duly filed under section 139 of the Act and deduction was also allowable

Magendra Singh Rathore, Alwar vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 483/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargiya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

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

Magendra Singh Rathore, Alwar vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargiya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

array atitcia after, cage =aradis, wage IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR. St vaxtircal, =r wees

Bharat Kumar Chetri, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1388/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND

Praful Parshuram Vaity, Palghar vs. I. T. O. 1, Palghar

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

ITA 2785/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2013-14 Praful Parshuram Vaity Ito-1, Palghar, Mumbai Rawale, Mahim, Palghar, Thane- Vs 401402, Mumbai Pan: Agtpv 6370 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish A. ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250(6)Section 50CSection 54BSection 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘C’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI