← 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)

Mohan Lal Talesara, Udaipur vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, Ward-1(1), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 316/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.316/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154oSection 194JSection 250

reduced the refund u/s 154. We find that rectification is only related to intimation U/s 143(1) of the Act read with section 139(1) of the Act. We find that there is a lack of verification in the point of the ld. AO section 154 is only restricted

Tejprakash Bhanwar Lal Mehta, U vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

ITA 16/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Tejprakash Bahnwar Lal Mehta, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(4) Udaipur, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

ITA 15/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Preeti Naveen Mehta, Udaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Udaipur, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

ITA 14/JODH/2022[2021-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2021-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Preeti Naveen Mehta, Udaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Udaipur, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

ITA 13/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH,JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

M.R Prakash M. Adani, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal)-50, Mumbai

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

ITA 922/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: (Retd.) Justice C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai. Before (Retd.) Justice C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM

Sha Kalidas Pragji Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3032/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice C.V. Bhadang (Rtd.) () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(c)Section 12ASection 139(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai. Before Justice C.V. Bhadang (Rtd.) (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM

Akriti Jewelcraftz (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Akriti Jewelcraftz (P) Ltd., Vs Acit, B-7/107A, Flat No.002, Gf, Circle-1(1), Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 029. Pan: Aakca8307K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘Ld. Faa’ For Short) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 23.12.2021 Passed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Articles & Things Of Customized Nature From Precious & Semi-Precious Stones & Other Articles Under The Name & Style Of Akriti Jewelcraftz Private Limited. During The Year Under Consideration, The Appellant Has Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Inr 74,28,280/-. The Said Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant Was Processed By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre ("Ao") Under Section 143(1) Of The Act At An Income Of Inr 80,05,630/- By Disallowing Inr 5,77,345/- U/S 36(L)(Va) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esi. The Appellant Filed The Appeal To Hon'Ble Cit(A) Against The Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

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

S M K R Vashi High School, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 515/SRT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.515/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Physical Court Hearing) S.M.K.R Vashi High School Income Tax Officer-Exemption Ward, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Umbhrat Road Maroli Bazar, Vs. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Jalalpore Navsari-396436 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs 0980 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitali Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं

Vivek Singhal, Indore vs. ITO3(1) CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assesse is dismissed

ITA 22/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivivek Singhal Dcit, Cpc 47, Manish Bagh Colony Bangaluru Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adups9604H Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2023

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Bhupendrakumar Balvantlal Gandhi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 687/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.687/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhupendrakumar Balvantlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- Gandhi 1(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 36 Jai Ambe Society, B/H Arjun Majura Gatre, Surat-395001 Complex, Bhatar Road, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agapg 3261 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/12/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 11.08.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 18.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Reopening Assessment U/S 147 Of Ethe Act By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.13,79,000/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit.

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, "SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.687/SRT/2023

Nrusinh Saraswati Yog Chintan Math Trust, Thane vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Thane

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

ITA 2658/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2658/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Nrusinh Saraswati Yog बिधम/ Ito, Exemption Ward, Chintan Math Trust Thane Vs. 16, Narayan Niwas, Opp, Quereshi Mansion, Railway Station, Thane Gokhale Road, Naupada, East, Maharashtra-400603. Near Teen Hath Naka, Thane West-400602. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagts6735E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ramkrishna Lingsur Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 05.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Denying The Accumulation U/S 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.10,50,000/- Despite The Fact That The Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing Form 10 Was Pending Before Ld. Cit(E), Pune.

For Appellant: Shri Ramkrishna LingsurFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Kanchan India Limited, Bhilwara vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1.1. Raipur, Raipur vs. Renu Behl, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 289/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.289/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 147Section 148Section 268ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the stay petition rendered infructuous

ITA 437/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.437/Coch/2023

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and SA dismissed

ITA 436/COCH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
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, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.436/Coch/2023

M/S Supreme Treon Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cenralized Processing Centre., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2219/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 44ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

appreciate that the due date for filing the return of income in the Appellants case is 30th November, 2015 in terms of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that since the Appellant had filed the Audit Report in Form 10CCB ... Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that since the Original Return of Income was filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1), the Revised Return of Income filed under section 139(5) was a valid return. 7. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate

Nivesh Group, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Delhi-15, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

Raj Kishore Upadhyay, Gopalganj vs. ITO Ward- Siwan, Siwan

In the result, the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumars.A. No. 06/Pat/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 300/Pat/2023) Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Raj Kishore Upadhyay,...............................Applicant Rajendra Nagar, Ward No. 22, Gopalganj, Bihar, Pin-841428 [Pan: Aajpu7920N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-Siwan -A N D-

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 208Section 234BSection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

advance tax required to be paid by the assessee on that assessed income. Otherwise, if an assessee has filed return under section 139(1), then, he was required to pay agreed tax on voluntarily returned income. Therefore, ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal as infructuous. After perusal of both

Traxit Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Assessing Officer, CPC Bangalore

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2793/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl.CIT)
Section 115Section 115BSection 11BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

rate of tax under section 115BAA of the Act. Since Form 10IC was not filed along with the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, while passing order under section 143(1), the CPC has denied the concessional rate of tax and has levied