← 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)

Srishti Associates, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota, Kota-Rajasthan

ITA 587/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 246ASection 44A

ITA NO. 587/JP/2024 SRISHTI ASSOCIATES VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA 2 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Veena Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 376/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT (V.C)
Section 147Section 148Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Veena Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 375/JPR/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the following reason: 3

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT (V.C)
Section 147Section 148Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Jawaharlal Nehru Shekshanik and Samajik Sansthan, Jaipur vs. Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 630/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra, Add. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

facts. Moreover your honours would appreciate that CBDT has consciously mentioned the “before the due date specified under section 139…” and not section 139(1). Accordingly, case of assessee is very much covered by the immunity provided as per CBDT circular. Ld.CIT(A) has also relied upon decision ... view of above, it is submitted that as: - Assessee has obtained Audit Report on 26.7.2016 i.e. prior to the due date as per section 139(1), which was furnished Online on 25.3.2017 alongwith the Return of Income (before the due date as per section 139- which needs to be interpreted

Sri. Gujjappa, N, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 648/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274

Admittedly, the assessee has not filed the return of income for the year under dispute within the time permitted under section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act i.e. 31-03-2018. However, the assessee has made an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act before

Shri Brijkutir Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA 884/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Himanshu Sharma (CIT DR)
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234FSection 80P(2)(d)

80IA, 80IAB, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID and 80IE of the Act in case return of income was filed after the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, no adjustment could have been made for the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in cases ... where return was filed after the expiry of due date specified under Section 139(1) of the Act by invoking provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act for the assessment years prior to Assessment Year 2021-22. 7.1. We note that by way of Finance

Cosmo Speciality Chemicals Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 809/DEL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Ay : 2021-22 M/S Cosmo Speciality Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Chemcials Private Limited, Vs. Cr Building, New Delhi 1008, Dlf Tower-A, Jasola District Centre, Delhi – 110 025 (Pan: Aaicc6706G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 115BSection 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

revised under section 139(5) of the Act by the appellant on 19.5.2021 it stepped into the shoes of the original return under section 139(1) of the Act, thereby substituting the original return, filed on 29.12.2020. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... submitted that benefit of Section 115BAB cannot be denied merely on the ground that Form 10ID was not filed within due date of Section 139(1) but was filed on 19.05.2021 with revised return u/s. 139(5) within the permissible time. Filing of Form is directory and not mandatory

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Kdp Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 1812/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68

1 ITA nos. 1811 & 1812/Del/2021 & CO nos. 56 & 57/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI

DCIT, CC Gzbd, Uttarpradesh vs. Kdp Buildwell Private Ltd., Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the

ITA 1811/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68

1 ITA nos. 1811 & 1812/Del/2021 & CO nos. 56 & 57/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Atul Ashok Parakh, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 305/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

operative Credit Society Ltd. are recorded in the books of accounts and income thereon was declared in the returns filed in compliance to Sections 139(1) and 148 of the Act. To substantiate this claim, the appellant has submitted copies of the bank statements maintained with Mis Shri Renuka Mata ... against the sales made of Rs.1,48,26,460/- and already been offered for income in the returns filed in compliance to Sections 139(1) and 148 of the Act. 6.5 It is further seen from the submissions made by the appellant that the appellant's case for previous

Sankalp Engineering and Services Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 10, Pune

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

ITA 249/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 56(2)(ia)Section 68

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

Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh, Ahmedabad vs. Income -Tax Officer, Ward-1, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 298/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.298/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh The Ito बनाम/ 22, Konark Society Ward-1 Nr. Railway Colony International Taxation V/S. Jawahar Chowk, Sabarmati Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abypg 6172 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 01/06/2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 22/10/2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh Vs. Ito (Intl.Taxation) Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 2Section 5(2)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ’डी’, अहमदाबाद

Goodwill Team Papers Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

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

ITA 813/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 813/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 271BSection 44A

1 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,‘डी’"यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, , , , उपा"य" एवं

Guljeet Singh Saroya, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 1 (4), Gurugram

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1022/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 37Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND

Samit Ray, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 780/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

thereafter passed an ex parte assessment order. He has accepted the return of income declared by the assessee vide her return filed under section 139(1). The discussion made in paragraph no. 3 is the relevant discussion in this brief assessment order of one page, which reads as under ... Counsel for the assessee submitted that all these assesses have filed their regular returns of income within due date under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. They have disclosed the complete details and computed the long-term capital gain assessable in their hands. If the computation made

Malika Roy, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 779/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

thereafter passed an ex parte assessment order. He has accepted the return of income declared by the assessee vide her return filed under section 139(1). The discussion made in paragraph no. 3 is the relevant discussion in this brief assessment order of one page, which reads as under ... Counsel for the assessee submitted that all these assesses have filed their regular returns of income within due date under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. They have disclosed the complete details and computed the long-term capital gain assessable in their hands. If the computation made

Arati Ray, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. -3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 778/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

thereafter passed an ex parte assessment order. He has accepted the return of income declared by the assessee vide her return filed under section 139(1). The discussion made in paragraph no. 3 is the relevant discussion in this brief assessment order of one page, which reads as under ... Counsel for the assessee submitted that all these assesses have filed their regular returns of income within due date under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. They have disclosed the complete details and computed the long-term capital gain assessable in their hands. If the computation made

Shri Manish Agarwal, Chennai vs. The DCIT, Ncc-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1083/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1082 & 1083/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Manish Agarwal, The Dcit, Suit No.314, Ram Lakhan Chambers, Ncc-4(1), General Muthiah Mudaly Street, Chennai. Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Afkpm 9253 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.KarunakaranFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 208Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Shri Manish Agarwal, Chennai vs. The DCIT, Ncc-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1082/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1082 & 1083/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Manish Agarwal, The Dcit, Suit No.314, Ram Lakhan Chambers, Ncc-4(1), General Muthiah Mudaly Street, Chennai. Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Afkpm 9253 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.KarunakaranFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 208Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Harish Kumar Garg, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 767/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 44ASection 60ASection 69A

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