← 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)

Abbott Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2756/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

Vsr Infratech Private Limited, Vasant Vihar Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, New Delhi

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

ITA 3153/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 43B

Section 43B of the Act which prescribe that all payments made up to the due date of filing of return as prescribed under Section 139(1) shall be considered. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.1

Sharadchandra Dattatray Mulik, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

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

ITA 619/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sharadchandra Dattatray Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Mulik, Kolhapur. Dattaashila Agencies, Gargoti Road, At Post Uttur, Tal. Ajra, Kolhapur- 416220. Pan : Aghpm1855G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Levying The Penalty U/S 271B A Sum Of Rs.1,50,000 Without Appreciating The Reasonable Circumstances Under Which Appellant Was Not Able To Get His Account Audited, As The Appointed Ca Has Discontinued The Audit Without An Intimation & Not Issued The Tax Audit Report, Under Such Circumstances Your Appellant Prays For Deletion Of Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 271BSection 44A

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

Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune. S.No.2/6, Near Baner Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aaacr8741G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Weighted Deduction Amounting To Rs.9,25,79,494/- U/S 35(2Ab) Of The Act. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Company Was Not Entitled To Claim Weighted Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Since Form No. 3Cla Was Filed By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Specified U/S 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 35Section 37(1)

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

Chundi Sukumar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO(International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.132/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Chundi Sukumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Reddy (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bnqpc2445F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)

ITA No 132 of 2024 Chundi Sukumar Reddy आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Srinivasan Nandagopal, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1254/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

V Sathyamoorthy&Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1021/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1021/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी

Khoday Eshwarsa and Sons Pvt Ltd (Formerly Ms Khoday Eshwarsa and Sons), Bangalore vs. DCIT- Central Circle 1(1) Bgl, Bangalore

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

ITA 1080/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 153ASection 153BSection 153D

below: i. The assessee filed original return of income dated 15 February 2021 whereas the checklist says the original return was filed under section 139(1)/139(4) of the Act dated 9th of January 2021. ii. As per the checklist, the assessee has declared return income

Khoday Eshwarsa and Sons ( Presently Khoday Eshwarsa and Sons Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT - Central Circle 1(1) Bangalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 1079/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shankar A, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri DK Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 153ASection 153BSection 153D

income dated 15 February 2021 whereas the checklist says the original . ITA No.1079 & 1080/Bang/2024 Page 10 of 14 return was filed under section 139(1)/139(4) of the Act dated 9th of January 2021. ii. As per the checklist, the assessee has declared return income

Advertising Agencies Association of India (Earlier Registered Under the Societies Act 1860 As Advertising Agencies Association of India Converted Into Company), Mumbai vs. I.T.O. (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 4425/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)

compliances as mandated, such as, filing of Form No. 10B (audit report), tax return before the due date of filing tax return under Section 139(1) of the Act and the non-filing of form 10 within the time provided u/s 139(1) was purely due to unexpected technical glitches

Sujeet Gupta, Bareilly vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Bareilly New

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.208/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sujeet Gupta, Shop No. S-55, M/S Paris Fashions, Awas Vikas Market, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly, Up-243122 Pan: Aifpg6341K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Krishna Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH LUCKNOW BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON

U P Sugar Mills Cogen Association, Lucknow vs. AO Exemption Circle, Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 145/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.145/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Up Sugar Mills Cogen Association, 403, Chintels House,16-Station Road, Lucknow, Up-226001 Pan: Aaatu2238A . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Swaran Singh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Krishna Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH LUCKNOW BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON

Virendra Singh Saini, Haryana vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengalore

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

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

case of the assessee before the authorities below has been that such payments before the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act amounts to sufficient compliance of the provisions in terms of section 43B of the Act, not calling for any disallowance. Per contra, the Department ... case of the assessee before the authorities below has been that such payments before the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act amounts to sufficient compliance of the provisions in terms of section 43B of the Act, not calling for any disallowance. Per contra, the Department

Guru Kripa Seva Ashyram, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 703/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

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

Basavalinga Sadasivaiah Ajaikumar, Mysore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1470/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

delay in filling Form 67 i.e., it was filed after the due date for filling original return of income prescribed under section 139(1) of the income tax Act. The said issue under consideration is no longer res integra. We note that on identical issue, the Co-ordinate Bench ... would be disallowed if the assessee does not file . Page 6 of 9 Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that that there are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief in case

Neelakanth Kuntoji Basavaraj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1157/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Neelakanth Kuntoji Basavaraj, Vs. Ito, Spl B-No.120 1St Stage, Ward – 6(2)(1), Peenya Industrial Estate, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Agspb 4710 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. Kiran Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri. K. Kiran Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68

engaged in the business of manufacturing of fabricated metal products. For the Assessment Year 2020-21, the return of income was filed under section 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs.33,13,640/-. Assessee has also declared net agricultural income of Rs.27,76,000/-. The assessment

Mr. Devinder Singh, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3574/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Gagan Goyal & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanmr. Devinder Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Flat No. 302, A Wing, Bhagwati Office Of The Income Tax Imperia, Plot No. 01, Sector 09, Officer, Int. Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Ulwe, Navi Mumbai – 410206. Room No. 1708, 17Th Floor, Air Pan: Bieps5253G India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 271ASection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR

Koth Group Co.Op. Urban Credit Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 628/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: The Appellate Authority & Therefore, The Addl/Jcit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Adjustment Made U/S 143(1)(A)(V) By Ao.Cpc & Allowed The Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of Rs.5,20,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2022-23 Koth Group

Rajdeep Buildcon Pvt Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 469/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

under: The original returns of income for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06 were filed within the time allowed under section 139(1). The search under section 132 in the case of the assessee was carried out on 9-12-2005 and the assessee filed return of income ... incorrectly valued the closing stock in those years. The assessee had filed returns of income for all the six assessment years under section 139(1). The assessments or reassessments could not be made in these years by invoking the provisions of section 147 after initiation of search proceedings in view

Rajdeep Buildcon Privat Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 468/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

under: The original returns of income for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06 were filed within the time allowed under section 139(1). The search under section 132 in the case of the assessee was carried out on 9-12-2005 and the assessee filed return of income ... incorrectly valued the closing stock in those years. The assessee had filed returns of income for all the six assessment years under section 139(1). The assessments or reassessments could not be made in these years by invoking the provisions of section 147 after initiation of search proceedings in view