← 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)

Om Prakash Singh, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer -1(4), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 777/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatom Prakash Singh V. The Income Tax Officer- J-166 Opp City School 1(4), Lucknow Raibareily Road, South City Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aidps7478M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

contribution towards State Insurance and provident Fund of Rs. 5,70,460/- before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. A.O. (Dy. DIT CPC, Bangalore) in rectification order passed under section 154 of the Income

Mahesh Tukaram Matkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2350/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274

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

Mahesh Tukaram Matkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2342/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274

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

Riteshh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 826/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Shresth Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC 4(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 427/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

which was complied with by the assessee filing return of income on 23.04.2021 declaring the same income as was declared under section 139(1) of the Act. Finally, in the reasons recorded, the AO further noted in para 5 that the assessee had submitted details/documents relating to equity transacted through

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Decorum Infrastructure Private Limited, Howrah

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1762/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Deepsikha Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1714/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deepsikha Distributors Pvt. Ltd..……………………………….…….……Appellant 15/2/1, Deodar Street, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaacd9515E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata..………………………..………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.06.25 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The 2. Business Of Investment In Shares & Filed Its Return Of Income On For A.Y. 2012-13 U/S 139(1) Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.279/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed On 17.03.2015 Assessing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,15,00,279/- By Adding Rs.1,15,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act. After That, The Assessee Went In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 30.06.2015 Allowed The Appeal Deepsikha Distributors Pvt. Ltd Of The Assessee. Thereafter, The Revenue Preferred Appeal Before The Itat Wherein The Tribunal Set Aside The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) & Asked The Assessing Officer To Pass De Novo Assessment & The Assessing Officer Vide Fresh Assessment Order U/S 254/250/143(3) Of The Act Sustained The Same Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- U/S 68 Of The Act As Unexplained Cash Credit.

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

M/S. Jewel India Jewellers, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1445/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the primary contention of the assessee is that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. The income declared in the course of the survey had already been disclosed in the original return filed under Section 139(1). Therefore, there was no case of concealment warranting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seizure operations were also conducted in the premises of related entities at Kolkata. The assessee had originally filed a return of income under Section 139(1) declaring total income of ₹10,16,90,340/-. Subsequently, in compliance with notice issued under Section 153A, the assessee again filed return of income ... inaccurate particulars thereof. The income declared in the course of the survey had already been disclosed in the original return filed under Section 139(1). Therefore, there was no case of concealment warranting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee further submitted that

DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1311/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1310/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

DCIT, CC -2(1), Kolkata vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1309/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. Frankdeal Tracom Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1308/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. Frankdeal Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1307/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

DCIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. Frankdeal Tracom Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1290/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1290, 1307 & 1308/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Frankdeal Tradcom Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aabcf1099A] Ita Nos.1309, 1310 & 1311/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Amanat Trade Comm Pvt. Ltd..………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 6D, Shyamkunj, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Kol- 7. [Pan: Aagca3278H] Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: All The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Search Operation, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Shyam Greenfield Developer Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1164/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Cotha Vinod Hayagriv, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 86/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M. Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., JCIT-DR
Section 108ASection 22Section 250

notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act was not expired and the assessee has filed return of income un der section 139(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year and no assessment was completed. Therefore, the arguments raised by the learned Counsel on this point is dismissed ... noted that the assessee had filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs.4,01,26,790/-. We also noted from the Order of the AO that while completing the assessment has made addition only on the basis of enquiry conducted by the Investigation

Shalibhadra Exprorts Pvt Ltd, Mumabi vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1287/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan KR. Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM& MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.1287/Mum/2022

Evermore Financial Services Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 8(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraevermore Financial Vs. Ito Ward 8(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Office C/O Cs Anand, Advocate Central Revenue Building B-81, First Floor, I.P. Estate (Part B), Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110002 Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi – 110024 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacce7809C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 69

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee filed its return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs.29,337/- for Assessment Year 2013-14. On the basis of information received from the DCIT, Circle 9(1

Meena Jain, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-53(92), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4072/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Meena Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-702, Rail Vihar Apartments, Ward-53(92), Sector 15, Gurugram Gurugram Pin: 122 001 Haryana Pan :Aahpj3007B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271F

penalty: Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that assessee has failed to comply with provision of section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Assessee has failed to file its return of income as required under sub-section (1) of section 139 ... said year. The assessee also submitted that the period in question when the assessee was required to make compliance to the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for assessment year 2015-16 i.e. between June to October, she was under severe stress dealing with failing marriage

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Chetan Goyal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 356/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Income, Chetan Goyal, Vs. Room No. 343, 4Rd Floor, E-2, B-28, Anand Vihar S.O., East Delhi Era Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Delhi-1100 92 New Delhi. Pan :Ahtpg3172D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

dated 30.12.2022 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-31, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. AO”) under Sections 139(1) of the Act for assessment year 2021-22. 2 ITA No. 356/Del.2025 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return ... income under Section 139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs.20,48,760/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) of Act dated 30.06.2022 was issued by Ward-71(3), Delhi. The case was transferred to the Ld. AO vide order under Section