“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)

Aashirvad Villa Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing

ITA 1372/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 1372/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Aashirvad Villa Limited,.........................Appellant 21A, Belvedere Road, Kolkata-700027 [Pan: Aaecs6659N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-4(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shrip.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 13, 2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 71Section 71(2)

writing or in electronic mode”. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income electronically under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act on 15.02.2021. The assessee adjusted the loss during the year in house property amounting to Rs.87,143/-, which

Bhagirath Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 742/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: This Office That The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Has Invested Of Rs. 29,32,775/- In Accordance The Provision Of Section 54B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 To Purchases Agricultural Land Out Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.37,64,082/-

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 2(14)Section 54Section 54BSection 54DSection 54ESection 54FSection 54G

However, the appellant has not furnished his Return of Income for the year under consideration”, whereas on the amendment in section 139(1) of sixth Proviso, section 54, section 54B or section 54D or section 54EC or section 54F or section 54G or section 54GA or section 54GB were inserted

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbaiqqq vs. Assessment Unit NFAC Cetnre ITO, Ministry of Finance Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2496/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddesh

Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 37(1)Section 68Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

Mool Chand Aggarwal, Saharanpur vs. ACIT Central Circle-4, Delhi

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

ITA 1786/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the AO decaling total income of Rs.3,18,43,450/-, the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act as the search was initiated in the case of the assessee. The case was picked up for 'compulsory scrutiny' and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act by computing the income of the of the assessee at Rs.3,32,61,550/- as against the return income of the assessee at Rs.3,18,43,450/- by making an addition of Rs.14,18,1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S.Hosdurg Range Kallu Chethu Thozhilali Vyavasaya Co-Op Society, Calicut vs. The ITO Ward 1, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 60/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalhosdurg Range Kallu Chethu Thozhilali Income Tax Officer Vyavasaya Co-Operative Scoiety Ward - 1, Kannur Kunnummal, Kanhangad P.O. Vs. Hosdurg 671315 [Pan: Aaaah4840A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Jacob, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

The Kumarakom Vadakkumbhagom Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kottayam vs. The ITO Ward -2, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 339/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalkumarakom Vadakkumbhagom Income Tax Officer Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Ward -2, Kollam Kumrakom Vs. Kottayam 686563 [Pan:Aaaat5887H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Devananada NarasimhamFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

The Koodaranhi Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 191/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalkoodaranhi Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income Tax Officer - 2(3) Koodaranhi P.O. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kozhikode 673604 Mananchira [Pan: Aacat9315N] Kozhikode 673001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

Shri Umang H. Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Ward-7(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 796/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ahilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT-D.R

Section 145Section 40Section 69CSection 801B(10)Section 80ASection 80I

High Court also has observed that the return of income filed u/s. 139(4) cannot said to be meeting the requirements of section 139(1) in context of section 80AC of the Act which I.T.A Nos. 760 & 796/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 Page No. 10 DCIT vs. Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar

The DCIT, Circle-11, Ahmedabad vs. Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 760/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ahilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT-D.R

Section 145Section 40Section 69CSection 801B(10)Section 80ASection 80I

Ajmer Industries LLP, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 760/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

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

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

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

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

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

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274

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

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 755/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Dublin (Ireland) vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

Accordingly, the additions made by the Ld. AO in the impugned case deserve to be deleted on the merit for the year under consideration. Thus, the grounds raised are allowed and appeal of asseessee ...

ITA 3672/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmastay Application No.52/Del/2024 (Ita No.3672/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Limited, Circle-1(1)(1), Dublin (Ireland), International Taxation, 4-6, Riverwalk, Citywest Business New Delhi. Campus, Saggart, Dublin 24, Ireland. Pan: Aahca7203M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate & Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. 2. The Stay Application In Hand Has Been Filed For The Stay Of Demand In Regard To Ay 2021-22 And, During The Course Of Argument, It Was Submitted By Ita No.52/Del/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)

hold stock of any items provided to the distributors/resellers. 3.1 In relevant AY, the Appellant had filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on March 12, 2022, declaring an income of Rs. 65,29,00,600/- (rounded off), taxable on a gross basis

Nira vs. Inh Kishoresinh Gehlot, Indiavs.CPC, Bangalore (Present Jurisdiction -Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad), Gujarat

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1068/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1068/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Niravsinh Kishoresinh Cpc बनाम/ Gehlot Bangalore Vs. Shivam Vasant Chowk, Present Jurisdiction - Dharmaj, Petlad Dist Income Tax Officer Anand, Anand, Gujarat Ward 5(3)(2), Ahmedabad 388430 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajtpg6241P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Balaji V., Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. Dr 01/02/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/02/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Appellant Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Chennai (‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Intimation Order Dated 20.03.2020 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(1) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions Made By The Respective Parties & We Have Also Perused The Relevant Materials Available On Record.

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

Rules i.e. the statement of income from a country or specified territory outside India and FTC within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. 4. The case of the appellant before the First Appellate Authority and before us as well is this that he had verified ... that, the claim of FTC categorically disallowed for filing of Form No.67 after the due date of filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act as the crux of the case made out by the appellant. However, the appeal preferred by the appellant against the intimation

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 43/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 43/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(1), M/S. Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 64, Bentinck Street 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aacce0887C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri Asim Panda, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 7, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 250Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Assessment Year 2012-13 in question. The assessee filed return of I.T.A. No.6866/Del/2018 2 income at ₹12,62,27,390/- under Section 139(1) of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. In the course