“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)

The Farmers Service Co-Operative Limited, Srikakulam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 166/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.166/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Farmers Service Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1, Srikakulam. Srikakulam. Pan: Aabtt4377L (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 : 24/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

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

Konizerla Sri Tilak Pacs, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 136/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.136/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Konizerla Sri Tilak Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-126 Konizerla, Penugolanu Ward-3(5), Post, Gampalagudem Mandal, Vijayawada. Krishna District, Andhr Pradesh. Pan: Aabak2512K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 14/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271FSection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not filed a valid return of income in accordance with the provisions of section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act in order to claim deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that as per section

United Freight Carriers Private Limited, Visakhapatanam vs. DCIT Circle-4(1), Visakhapatanam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 74/VIZ/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.74/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) United Freight Carriers Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Flat No.205, Vinayaka Paradise Circle-5(1) Near Srinagar Bus Stop, Srinagar Visakhapatnam Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam - 530 026 Andhra Pradesh

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

paid within the due date specified in the respective Acts, but within the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., (supra) held that, it is an essential condition

M/S Shivdhara Property Venture Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 810/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.810/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Shivdhara Property Venture Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aarcs0501L) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 14.08.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kolkata-2 [In Short Ld. “Pr. Cit”] Dated 28.03.2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 153(A) Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata Dated 13.04.2021. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय सरमा, "ाियक सद

Kishan Gopal Rungta Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 609/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 12.01.2020 Ignoring That Audit Report In Form No. 10Ccb Was Filed On 22.04.2019. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 288Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

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

Dheeraj Tolaram Talreja, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3359/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Dheeraj Tolaram Income Tax Officer, Talreja International Taxation, A – 605, Ward 4(1)(1) Oberoi Esquire, Air India Building, Oberoi Garden City, Nariman Point, Vs. Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400021. Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Adopt3185J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sant - Addl. CIT D.R

Section 139(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 5(1)Section 6(1)Section 6(6)Section 64

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN

Jagriti Job Finder Private Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT Central - 1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2133/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishram/S Jagriti Job Finder Vs. Pcit (Central) -1 Private Limited, 222, 2Nd New Delhi-110055 Floor Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj5974E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Pandey

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

brief fact leading to the case is this that the assessee, a private limited company, filed its return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act through electronic media on 26.10.2018 for Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring total income at Rs.11,66,380/- which was processed under Section

Bagwant Kishore Memorial Educational Society, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption 1(3), Delhi

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3657/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 119Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

ITA No.- 3657/Del/2023 Bhagwant Kishore Memorial Educational Society. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE

Rajiv Kumar Khurana, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 36(6), New Delhi

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

ITA 43/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. The Assessee Had Filed An Affidavit & Stated That Due To Acute Weakness & Prolonged Illness, Appeal Could Not Be Completed & Filed Within Time. When This Was Rajiv Kumar Khurana Vs. Ito Confronted With The Ld. Dr, He Did Not Raise Any Serious Objections For Condonation Of Delay. Hence, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For Adjudication.

Section 148Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA

Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited Satara, Koregaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Satara

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 651/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 651/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Moti Heights, Azaad Chowk, New St-Stand, Koregaon, Satara-415501 Pan: Aaeas1871L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pr[mo^ Scnat_ [‘L^. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Uma Shankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1342/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

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

DCIT, Central Cirlce-28, New Delhi vs. Hazoorilal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 432/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarhazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Vs. Acit, M-44, M-Block, Greater Kailash- Central Circle-28, 1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadch3922L Dcit, Vs. Hazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Central Circle-28, M-44, M-Block, Greater New Delhi Kailash-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadch3922L Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri Varun Kholi, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

Hazoorilal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce-28, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

Mr. Chiragkumar Nandalal Makadia, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 250Section 6(1)Section 90

ground that the Appellant has not filed Form 67 within the due date of filing of return of income prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act without Chiragkumar Nandalal Makadia Vs. ITO Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 2 of 6 appreciating the fact that the same was furnished alongwith ... Rules, 1962. 1.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the Appellant had filed original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act well within the due date and the revised return under section 139(5) of the Act within the due date as applicable

Makevale Acrylics Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC Bengaluru Present Juridiction the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 566/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.566/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Makevale Acrylics Pvt.Ltd. The Adit, Cpc Bengaluru बनाम/ 372, 373, 374, 1,2 Sankarda Present Jurisdiction - Bhadarwa Road The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), V/S. At Moxi, Tal.Savli, Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara- 391 780 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafcm 2737 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/05/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 13/11/2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Makevale Acrylics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Adit, Cpc Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction The Dcit, Circle-2(1)1A) Asst. Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Ramesh Malikarjun Potdar, Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Osmanabad

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

ITA 831/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.831/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Satyajit Mandal

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144A

Brief facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual, no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) was filed for the A.Y. 2017-18. Based on the information received through ITBA (AIMS) that the appellant made a cash deposit during demonetization period

Ashok Raghunathrao Kulkarni, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 117/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 17(3)Section 89

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

Santhigram Service Co Operative Society Limited No K280, Erattayar Idukki vs. Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 795/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-2012

For Appellant: ------- None ------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P

sections 148/147 proceedings. And that section 80A(5) of the Act nowhere distinguish between the return(s) filed under various provisions, i.e. section 139(1) or in section 148 or in any other proceedings; as the case may be. We accordingly invoke stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs

Athirampuzha Regional Service Co-Op Bank, Kottayam vs. The ITO Ward 1, Kottayam

ITA 628/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271B

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

Athirampuzha Regional Service Co -Op Bank Ltd, Kottayam vs. The ITO, Kottayam

ITA 617/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271B

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