← 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)

Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income Tax- 15(3)(1) Uhde House, Room No.460, Vs. 4Th Floor, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (W.), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400083. M. K. Road, Pan: Aaacu1416H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M. M. Golvala A/W. Shri Hormuzd Jamshedji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Its Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059614356(1) Dated 11/01/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golvala a/w. Shri HormuzdFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of the time specified in Section 139(1), and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of the time specified in Section 139(1), and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of the time specified in Section 139(1), and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax together with interest

Anand Dilipbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 898/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: 3

For Appellant: Shri Rameshchandra B. Patel &For Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2021-22 Anand Dilipbhai

Mindspace Versonal Information, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 612/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.612/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mindspace Ventures Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.4, Jay Nagar, Aurangabad Dashmeshnagar, Aurangabad 431 005 Maharashtra Pan : Aagcm3686H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Adjournment application rejectedFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

that the appellant is a company which did not file any Return of Income for the A.Y. 2016-17 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. On verification of the information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee made huge transactions through

Venkataiah Deshagani, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda

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

ITA 588/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.588/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Venkataiah Deshagani Vs. Income Tax Officer Nalgonda Nalgonda Pan:Ciepd6337D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. P. Sunitha, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. P. Sunitha, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

ITA 588 of 2023 Venkataiah Deshagani आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad

Monika Arya, Telangana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 913/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90Section 90(2)

have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assessee does not file 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

Ken Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Ken Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, C 103 Trivoli Apartment, Block Vento, Circle – 4(3)(1), 1St Floor, Segehalli Village, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Hoskote Road, Bengaluru – 560 067. Pan : Aaecp 8792 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

under section 36(1)(va) of the Act was disallowed, even though the same was paid before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. Page 2 of 3 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a company. For the Assessment Year

Snc Lavalin Inc., Delhi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed, the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3691/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, Sh

Dipen Hasmukhbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1) (New) Previously Ward-1(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 907/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

appeal.” Dipen Hasmukhbhai Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year–2011-12 3. The assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 under Section 139(1) of the Act. After receiving the information, the case was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued

Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disclose in fulfillment of his statutory obligations to pay tax on the income chargeable to tax. After the return is filed under section 139(1), the assessment of tax is to be made and for the purpose of making an assessment under the Act, the ITO makes an enquiry contemplated

Samar Biri Factory, Siliguri vs. A.O., Assessment Unit, Bengaluru

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

ITA 582/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Samar Biri Factory Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit Aurobindopally Vs Siliguri - 734006 [Pan : Aaofs7941N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/02/2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal But The Main Contention Of The Assessee Is That On Account Of The Death Of The Key Person Of The Assessee Firm, No One Could Appear Before The Ld. Assessing Officer And, Thereafter When The Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A), The Same Was Dismissed On Account Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. It Was Prayed That Since High Pitched Assessment Has Been Made In The Case Of Assessee By The Ld. Assessing Officer & Assessee Had No Opportunity To Furnish The Details, The Issues On Merits May Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Assessing Officer For De Novo Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 69C

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

M/S. Rpl Projects Limited, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 62/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 62/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Rpl Projects Limited Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 24, Mangalam Building Vs Cpc, Bangalore 301, Hemant Basu Sarani Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecr3350D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Bonnie Debbarma, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Under These Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Instant Appeal Ex- Parte Qua The Assessee, On The Basis Of Available Records & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. We Have Heard The Ld. D/R & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Rs. 41,76,420/- Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Bonnie Debbarma, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Pushpendra Singh Chouhan, Sehore vs. ITO-Sehore, Sehore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 122/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Pushpendra Singh Ito Chouhan, Sehore C/O Adv.Hitesh Chimnani, Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18 South Tukoganj, Near Hotel Crown Palace, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cggps1953Q Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms. Komal Wadhwani & Komal Kataria, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Mansa Builders and Developers, Bhopal vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5(3), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 433/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Mansa Builders & Income-Tax Officer, Developers, 5(3), 1, Bhopal C/O Radha Krishna बनाम/ Traders, Vs. Bhanpur Square, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aatfm5948C Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Adv. & Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Secondary School Education Society Hegdekatta, Sirsi vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 897/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavsecondary School Education The Income Tax Officer Society Hegdekatta (Exemption), Ward -1 1. Shri Gajanan Sec. School Albuquerque House Vs. Hegdekatta Sirsi Attavar Road, Attavar Sirsi 581403 Karnataka Mangalore 575001 Pan – Aanas3479D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prabhath P. Bhat, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcti-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S250/2003-24/1063671684(1) Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad (Cit(A)) Dated 30.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered With Income Tax Department Under Section 12Aa & Also Got 80G Of The Act. The Main Object Of The Assessee Is To Provide Education To Aspirants From Primary Level To Secondary Level. For The Impugned Year, Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 07.01.2022, Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Shri Prabhath P. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCTI-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

that the assessee has not e-verified the audit report in Form 10B prior to the date of furnishing of the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and inter alia argued that

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S the British Co. Ed. School, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala

ITA 874/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

assessee has not given any notice to the concerned Assessing Officer in form No. 10 before the expiry of time allowed under section 139(1) in respect of any income accumulated or set apart in excess of 15% of the gross receipts of the assessee earned during the year under

The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Patiala

ITA 687/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

assessee has not given any notice to the concerned Assessing Officer in form No. 10 before the expiry of time allowed under section 139(1) in respect of any income accumulated or set apart in excess of 15% of the gross receipts of the assessee earned during the year under