← 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)

Rambalraam Chainss Private Limited, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 315/AGR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Rambalraam Chainss Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 1/98 & 1/99, Kasera Bazar, Ward-1(1)(1), Johari Bazar, Agra Fort- Agra 282003, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcr0768H Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234B

incorporated manufacturing company. The return of income for assessment year 2023-24 was filed by the assessee company on 29-9-2023 under section 139(1) of the Act. The learned CPC while processing the return issued an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated

Sndp Yogam Vaikom Union, Kottayam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kottayam

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

ITA 824/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Divya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

case are that the appellant is a charitable religious organization. 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, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits

Sndp Yogam Vaikom Union, Kottayam vs. ITO Ward-1, Kottayam

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

ITA 823/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Ms. Divya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

case are that the appellant is a charitable religious organization. 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, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits

Kayamkulam Village Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No 1596, Alappuzha vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 814/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kayamkulam Villege Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Perungala P.O., Alappuzha 690599 [Pan: Aadak5426G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sabu C.S., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 14.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant 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 Return Of Income For Ay 2021-22 Was Filed On 31.03.2022 Disclosing Nil

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C.S., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80o

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

Hubspire, Ernakulam vs. Assessing Officer, Ernakulam

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

ITA 781/COCH/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hubspire .......... Appellant H2/2041, St. Benedict Extention Road Ernakulam North, Kochi 682018 [Pan: Aahfh3670C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148A

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a firm. No return of income was filed under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2020-21. Based on the information that the appellant was in receipt of professional fees

Urban Wholesale Market Authority, Kozhikode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Kozhikode

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

ITA 737/COCH/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2008-09 Urban Wholesale Market Authority .......... Appellant Vengeri, Kozhikode 673010 [Pan: Aaalu0257D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wsd-1(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Somy Cherian Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkatta [Cit(A)] Dated 12.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Market Committee Constituted As Per Go(Ms) No. 117/99Ad Dated 17.04.1999 By The Government Of Kerala. It Is Formed With The Object Of Facilitating Marketing Of Agricultural Produce. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2008-09 Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 On 28.03.2015. In 2 Urban Wholesale Market Authority Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 22.04.2015 Disclosing Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S. 10(26Aab) Of The Act. However, The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kozhikode (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Had Disallowed Exemption On The Ground That The Appellant Is Not A Legal Entity Under The Provisions Of Any Act Passed By The State Legislative Assembly. Further, Provisions Of Section 10(26Aab) Are Applicable Only From Ay 2009-10. 3. Being Aggrieved, An Appeal Was Filed Before The Cit(A), Who Vide The Impugned Order Confirmed The Action Of The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Somy CherianFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 148

object of facilitating marketing of agricultural produce. The appellant had not filed return of income for AY 2008-09 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The case was reopened by issue of notice u/s. 148 on 28.03.2015. In 2 Urban Wholesale

The Thimiri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kasaragod vs. ITO Ward, Kasaragod

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

ITA 731/COCH/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Thimiri Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Nhanumaki, Chervathur, Kasaragod 671313 [Pan: Aabat0462H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kasaragod .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 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 20.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant 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 Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 30.10.2015. In Response

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

accepting deposits from members and providing credit facilities to members. The appellant had not filed regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.10.2015. In response

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Rishiraj Singh, Jhalawar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1073/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2023-24
For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Mohd. Azharuddin, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Saugaat, Ambala Cantt vs. ITO, Ward 4, Ambala Cantt. (Assessment Unit), Ambala Cantt

ITA 443/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “B” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Riddhi Siddhi Mahila Nagari Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Karad vs. CIT (Appeals), Delhi

ITA 2216/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2216/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Riddhi Siddhi Mahila Nagari Vs. Assessment Unit, Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Income Tax Department. Palkar House, 157, Guruwar Peth, Shri Vitthal Chouk, Karad- 415110. Pan : Aacar0958D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijaykumar N. Kashirsagar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Credit Co-Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Also In Accepting Deposits From Them. On The Basis Of Information That The Assessee Has Made One Time Deposit Of Rs.5,95,522/- & Tds Of More Than Rs.7,72,686/-

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar N. KashirsagarFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 80ASection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Kranthi Educational Society, Bhadrachallam vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 820/HYD/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 11Section 11oSection 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

assessee for the reason that, the audit report in Form 10B, has been filed beyond the due date provided under Section 139(1) of the Act r.w.s. 80AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. has denied exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Income ... return of income, has filed audit 7 Kranthi Educational Society report in Form 10B, which is beyond the due date provided under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a charitable institution registered under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and is governed

Subbalakshmamma Pinnama, Thummalagunta, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1463/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 45

brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, an individual, did not file her return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer received information that, the assessee had been allotted 27 flats in “Sri Sai Residency ... assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, accepting the returned income. Since the assessee had not filed the return voluntarily under Section 139(1) despite having taxable income, the A.O. held that, the income of Rs.1,50,68,940/- constituted under-reported income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1556/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd., ORDER PER: RAJESH KUMAR, AM These are cross appeals filed by the assessee as

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1555/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1554/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six

ITA 1553/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA' D' BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1552/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1551/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1368/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1367/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY