“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)

Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 754/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly .......... Appellant Puthur Kulangara House, Alagappanagar P.O. Mukundapuram, Thrissur 680301 [Pan: Arapp8842J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Lokanathan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 04.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant For Ay 2016-17. As Per The Information Flagged In Accordance With The Risk Management Strategy Formulate By The Cbdt & Evidence In Possession, The Appellant Had Sold Immovable Property In Ay 2015- 16 For A Consideration Of Rs. 1,14,80,000/-. Accordingly, The 2 Puthur Kulangara Jacob Pauly Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Issues A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 06.03.2023. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 05.04.2023 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 12,500/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 28.02.2024 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 45,73,680/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs. 45,61,180/- On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2016-17. As per the information flagged in accordance with

Kadukutty Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd - No: 628, Thrissur vs. Ward 1, (1), Thrissur

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

ITA 636/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kadukutty Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kadukutty P.O., (Via) Chalakkudy, Thrissur [Pan: Aabak0755A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Yash, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash In The Bank

For Appellant: Shri Yash, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

members and providing credit facilities to members. The appellant had not filed return of income for AY 2013-14 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Based on the information that the appellant had deposited cash in the bank 2 Kadukutty Service ... were made by the assessee in a return of income filed by him. That return can be under Sections 139(1), 139(4), 142(1) or Section 148, and to be valid, had to be filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Under Section 80A(5), the claim

Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamuna Nagar Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 550/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA and Sh. Abhinav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

assessee did not file return of income for the relevant Assessment Year 2012-13 voluntarily in pursuance of the provisions of section 139(1) of the 550-Chd-2025 Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamunanagar 11 Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus did not offer the income under the head capital gain

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar

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

ITA 1572/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1404/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1403/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO 22(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 964/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 964/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Pawan Kumar Agarwal,………….………...……Appellant P-912, Lake Town, Block-A, Kolkata-700089, West Bengal [Pan:Acvpa3110A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-22(2), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Addl. Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 69A

condoned for the appeal. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs.7,07,360/-. The return was subsequently selected for reassessment based on information received from the Investigation

Mohammad Naushad, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 900/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Tribunal has arisen. It has also been submitted by the assessee that the delay is neither deliberate nor intention but occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and prayed for condonation of delay. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR has also not objected to condone the delay. In view of the above and considering the contention of the assessee stated in the affidavit, the delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘एसएमसी’ न्यायपीठ,कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY

Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1298/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1298/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Vs Ito Ward-5(1), Kolkata 22, Brb Basu Road, 1St Floor, Room No.14, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaics 4667 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 13.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belated By 136 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay. The Contents Of The Application Are As Under :- Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench Ref: Appeal Petition Filed On: In The Matter Of : - An Application For Condonation Of The Delay In Filing The Memorandum Of Appeal Against The Appellate Order Dated 13-11- 2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-2017; & In The Matter Of The :- A Memorandum Of Appeal Filed Under The Income Tax Act, 1961; & In The Matter Of: -

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

admitted for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income as per provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for AY 2016-17 on 19.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 1,89,510/-. As per the information under the category "High

Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vividoddeshagala Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Haliyal, Haliyal vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali

ITA 1186/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vividoddeshagala Vs. Pcit, Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Hubli. Near Mlc Office, Bus Stand Road, Haliyal – 581 329, Karnataka. Pan : Aajas 9684 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vinay K Kulkarni, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vinay K Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(1)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Hubli, vide DIN : ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2024- 25/1074296526(1) dated 10.03.2025. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 29.12.2020 claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary vs. M/S Virgo Properties Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1181/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

assessee and alter on passing of Order by the learned CIT(A) on returned income originally filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act of Rs.5,29,40,890/- was accepted and the capital gain detail of the computation filed by the assessee on 19.03.2016 was also

Thrissur Vanitha Co-Operative Society Ltd, Punkunnam vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Varghese John, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 119(2)(b)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA Nos. 721 & 727/Coch/2025 Assessment Year

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 725/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

appellant is an individual deriving professional income as a Homeopathy doctor. The appellant had not filed return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015- 16. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 724/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 723/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 722/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

Thrissur Vanitha Co-Operative Society Ltd No. R 1189, Thiruvambady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 721/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Varghese John, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 119(2)(b)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA Nos. 721 & 727/Coch/2025 Assessment Year

Harmony Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 5725/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5725/M/2025 Assessment

Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3), New Delhi vs. M/S Shree Shyam Coatings Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3387/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Shree Shyam Coatings Limited, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3386/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI