← 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)

Jaya Juneja, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Indore

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

ITA 813/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg, CA & Shri Aayush Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148A

case are that the assessee, Smt. Jaya Tuneja, an individual, filed her original return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 28.08.2015 Jaya Juneja vs. ITO A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income of ₹8,95,170/- and long

Raja Satheeshkumar, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2942/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Before Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2942/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Raja Satheeshkumar, Income Tax Officer, H.No.2/167, Cecg Nagar, Alagapuram, Ward-1(6), Periyapudur, Salem, Salem. Tamil Nadu-636 016. [Pan: Auqps9210G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Bhupendran S, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246Section 246A

Briefly the facts of the case are, the appellant is an individual, no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, was filed by the appellant. Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the bank account, the assessing officer formed

C-2016 Itchiputhur Paccs, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2191/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2191/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 C-2016 Itchiputhur Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Coop. Credit Society, 12Th Road, Ward 1, Itchiputhur Village, Arakkonam Tk, Vellore. Vellore 631 003. [Pan: Aabac1870C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 5 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P(2)(a)

banking/credit facilities to its members. Since the assessee has not filed original ITR under section 139(1) of the Act, which was filed the same for the first time in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under section

Priti Pravin Kapadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 28(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 8460/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2011-12 Priti Pravin Kapadia, Income Tax Officer, D/3/703, Moraj Residency, Ward-28(2)(4), Palm Beach Road, Vs. Tower No.6, Sector-16A, Vashi Railway Station, Sanpada East, Commercial Complex, New Mumbai–400705. Vashi, [Pan: Atbpk1174B] Navi Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kartik Kutmutia For Revenue : Shri Sunil Mathews, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 28-10-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income Originally U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟). Subsequently, Basis The Receipt Of Information That The Assessee Has Placed Time Deposit Of Rs. 19 Lakhs With Hdfc Bank, A Notice U/S. 148 Of 2 The Act Was Issued. In Response To The Said Notice, No Return Of Income Was Filed & Thereafter, After Issuance Of Notice U/S. 142(1) Of The Act & A Show Cause Notice Which Again Remain Non-Complied, The Assessment Was Completed U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Wherein The Ao Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs. 19 Lakhs As Un-Explained Money U/S. 69B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kartik KutmutiaFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathews, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL

Income Tax Officer/Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kruti Sandeep Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 1968/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Kruti Sandeep Shah, Ward-19(2)(2), 117, Navyug Nagar Forjet Hill 503, 5Th Floor, Vs. Road, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400007. Parel, [Pan: Aapps4121F] Mumbai-400012. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Shah For Revenue : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 23-01-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟) On 26-09-2009, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 4,04,880/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Ao Was In Receipt Of Information From The Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has Obtained Accommodation

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL

Pristine Mega Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1450/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2022-23] M/S Pristine Mega Logistics Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Park Pvt. Ltd., Cpc Bangalore, 3Rd Floor, Commercial Plaza, Vs Circle-19(1), New Delhi Wing B, Radisson Hotel, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 Pan:Aagcp8465R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ashok Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

that the impugned audit report was filed beyond the due date but before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. It has also been argued that the impugned adjustment per se is not permissible for adjustment under section 143(1

M. Sons Gems N Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 4549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2015-16] M. Sons Gems N Jewellery Acit Pvt. Ltd. 4852/24, First Floor, Central Circle – 20 Near Sanjivan Hospital Vs New Delhi Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi Pan-Aadcm9406A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 251Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

allowance of business loss clearly provide that the same is allowable only if the Return of Income claiming loss has been filed under section 139(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the same has admittedly been not done by the appellant assessee and the impugned loss was claimed

Arbuda Textile Mill, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Juris. Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1906/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 145

assessee filed its return of income on 07.10.2018 declaring a loss of ₹72,27,795/-. The return was processed under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked

Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1724/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

appeal hearing.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income on 21.10.2022 under section 139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs.14,73,11,550/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. A search action under section

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1713/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

appeal hearing.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income on 21.10.2022 under section 139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs.14,73,11,550/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. A search action under section

Shri Vardhaman Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Pachora vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

ITA 2452/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2452/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Vardhaman Nagari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., S Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. 1061, Shivaji Chowk, Bhadgaon Road, Pachora, Maharashtra – 424201. Pan: Aacas3361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 22.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 14.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Assessment Made In Respect Of An Issue That Was Not Disclosed In Notice Issued U/S 148A(B) Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

Shri Vardhaman Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Pachora vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2451/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2451/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vardhaman Nagri V The Income Tax Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., S Officer, 1061, Shivaji Chowk, Ward-1(4), Pune. Bhadgaon Road, Pachora, Maharashtra – 424201. Pan: Aacas3361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe - Dr Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 22.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 18.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK

Sumangal Jewels P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2357/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2357/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year 2009-10

Vikas Goyal, Bengaluru vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 501/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 250

ITA No.501/Bang/2025 Vikas Goyal, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B"BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT

Ankita Badal Mittal, Mumbai vs. Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5484/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69A

mind by him. In fact, he has overlooked the fundamental fact of filing of the return of income by the Appellant under section 139(1) on 30.07.2017. Hence, initiation of reassessment proceedings without application of mind is illegal and bad in law. 2. The loan

Apar Corporation Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC6(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5232/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankarapar Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cc 6(1), Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, 19Th Floor, Building No.5, Air India Building, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400021 Chembur, Mumbai – 400071. Pan/Gir No. Aabca1405B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Sureshkumar Ramanlal Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Ward 19(3)(1)), Mumbai

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

ITA 3456/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘G’ BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Shree Nathkrupa Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur vs. ITO (Exemption), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1901/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1901/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shree Nathkrupa Shikshan Ito (Exemption), Kolhapur Prasarak Mandal, At & Post Waghale Tal. Vs. Panhala-416230 Kolhapur Maharashtra Pan-Aajts3418D अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mayuresh Doshi (Virtual) Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19-12-2025 आदीश /Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayuresh Doshi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 4

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ।येंयपीण प णी या न् " ीी " IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH

Faruk Rafik Mujawar, Ichalkaranji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 1344/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194HSection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1725/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA