← 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)

Neptune Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 105/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.105/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Neptune Holidays Pvt. Ltd.……........................…...……………....Appellant 3Rd Floor, 113/F, Maheshwartola Road, Kolkata – 700046. [Pan: Aaccn9754F] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnine Debarma, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (Appeals) Was Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 11,76,344/- Made By A.O. At Cpc On Account Of Delay In Deposit Of Employees Contribution To P.F. & Esi While Processing The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) When In Fact Entire The Sum Was Paid Within The Due Dates Specified Under The Relevant Statues & Wrong Mention Of Dates In Tax Audit Report Were Duly Brought To The Notice Of Ld. Cit (Appeals).

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80J

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

Rajesh Kumar Lakhran, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-7(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/JPR/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Choudhary (Proxy)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 154Section 90

provides that Form 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the said Rule nowhere provides that if the said Form 67 is not filed within the above stated time frame ... 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. Thus filing of Form 67, in my view, is a procedural/directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement. Therefore, violation

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Devine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraacit, Central Circle 09, Vs. M/S. Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Plot No.4, Sector 13, Dwarka City Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 075. (Pan : Aaccd4476A)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA

Bisharpara Kodalia Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Dumdum vs. ITO, Ward-49(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bisharpara Kodalia Cooperative Income Tax Officer, Ward- Credit Society Ltd. 49(2), Kolkata Vs. Nabajiban, Bisharpara, Dum Dum, West Bengal-700158. (Pan: Aaaab9104B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Radhey Shyam Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 814/JPR/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2024AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Ms. Nargis Parveen, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69

learned AO has erred at law as well as on facts initiating proceedings under section 148 by stating that no return under section 139(1) was filed and the learned CIT (Appeal) further erred in justifying the proceedings under section 148 & thus had erred in confirming the action ... Declaring income of 5,710/- and agricultural income of 1,88,500/- as per ITR-3 filed under section 139(1) against the income of 44,350/- and agricultural income of ₹ 1,88,500/- - (c) The action of AO initiating the proceedings under section 148 is justified on the basis

Staark Accessories Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 13(2)(2)

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

ITA 2418/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin S. Chhag, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

New Skies Satellites B.V., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2944/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2020-21] New Skies Satellites B.V., Vs Dcit, C/O-Ernst & Young Llp, Golf Cirlce-2(2)(2), View Corporate Tower, Tower-B, International Taxation, Sector-42, Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaccn1866C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Ananya Bajpayee, Adv. Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit Dr & Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

total credit of INR 32,90,78,451/- claimed in the return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act which was also granted in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. 5. That the Ld. AO erred in charging interest under Section 234A

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2284/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

revised to Rs. 226,31,98,158/-. It is also submitted that the original return was filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) and even the revised return has been filed within time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act. Both the returns are valid

Yes Securities (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2191/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleyessecurities(India)Ltd, Acit-Circle 4(2)(2), Unit No.602, 6Th Floor, Room No.640, बनाम/ Ifc Tower 1 & 2, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Elphinstone, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai-400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy6065C (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Krupa Gandhi, CA &For Respondent: Mr.Mirza Azhar.Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 234CSection 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, -2, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Income-Tax-2, Race Course, Vadodara-390007 Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 7439 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

Rs.5,79,50,223/- paid by the assessee company to PFC after the due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, it was required to be disallowed by the assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings

Akshay Rangraoji Umale, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 12 Pune, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 1428/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1428/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-19 Akshay Rangroji Umale A-402, Pride Panorama, Shivaji Hsg. Society, Sb Road, Pune-411016 Pan: Aampu7528K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Kishor Phadke [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Sonal Sonkavde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5Section 6(1)Section 90

॥आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे ‘एस.एम.सी.’ न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘SMC’ BENCH, PUNE

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 575/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 144ASection 32ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “K” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) LT.A

Prakash Amarlal Doulatani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 970/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 970/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Prakash Amarlal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ward -3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Doulatani Vs. 16/318, Satyagrah Chhavni, Near Bhavnirjar, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaspd3727B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Vihar Soni, A.R. Assessee By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 30/01/2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/01/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Arising Out Of The Order Dated 22.11.2018 Passed By The Ito, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12, Whereby & Wherunder The Addition Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of ‘On Money’ Has Been Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

submitted copy of income tax return and computation of income which implies that the assessee was relying upon the return already filed under Section 139(1) of the Act which was supposed to be treated as return in response to the notice issued under Section ... this notice online through e-filing portal.” 6. Immediately, thereafter the assessee filed the return which was already filed by him under Section 139(1) of the Act alongwith the computation of income of the assessee and the details of payment made by the assessee to the Iscon Group

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 620/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.618 To 620/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Andhra Pradesh Industrial Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Development Corporation Circle 1(1) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7395Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 170

ITA Nos 618 to 620 of 2023 APIDC Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 619/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.618 To 620/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Andhra Pradesh Industrial Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Development Corporation Circle 1(1) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7395Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 170

ITA Nos 618 to 620 of 2023 APIDC Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 618/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.618 To 620/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Andhra Pradesh Industrial Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Development Corporation Circle 1(1) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7395Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 170

ITA Nos 618 to 620 of 2023 APIDC Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pairagacha vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 669/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pairagacha vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 668/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Bharat Singh Chawda, Dewas vs. The ITO-1, Dewas

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 234/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyania.Y. 2011-12

Section 148Section 2(14)

1 Bharat Singh Chawda ITA No.234 of 2023 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,इंदौर"यायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Shree Goverdhan Nathji Haveli Trust, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions-Ward-3, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1088/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shree Goverdhan The Income Tax Nathji Haveli Trust, Officer, No. 15, Nehrunagar, Exemptions, Seshadripuram, Ward – 3, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aacts7617M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate
Section 11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI