← 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)

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. Padmavathi V., Hospet

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

ITA 2102/BANG/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Mahasukhrai Pragjibhai Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2637/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Malav Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012

Bhagwan Precision, Rohtak vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

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

ITA 5174/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbhagwan Precision, Vs. Acit, 35, Subhash Nagar, Model Town, Rohtak. Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aajfb6625K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Order : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (Appeals)-6, Chennai [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Brief Fact Of The Case That Assessee Is A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Precision Turned Parts. The Works Of The Assessee Is At Industrial Part Iv, Plot No.9 V, Begampur (Haridwar)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 44ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’, NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI

K L D A V College, Roorkee, Haridwar vs. ITO Ward 1(3)(4), Roorkee, Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 140BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

DCIT, Trivandrum vs. St Josephs Province, Trivandrum

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

ITA 443/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13Section 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 21A

section (9) of section 13 of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant had not filed the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant is a charitable trust duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. Provisions of sub-section (9) of section 13, which

DCIT, Trivandrum vs. St. Josephs Province, Trivandrum

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

ITA 442/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13Section 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 21A

section (9) of section 13 of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant had not filed the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant is a charitable trust duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. Provisions of sub-section (9) of section 13, which

M/S Ashoka Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed as per the

ITA 690/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH : JAIPUR BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.690/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year

Sakshi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 682/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH : JAIPUR BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.682/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year

Singularity Labs Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2019-2020 Singularity Labs Private Limited Ito, Ward-4(1)(1) A Wing, Unit No.105 Vs. Ahmedabad- 380 Building No.1-A, Aqualine Properties 015. Pvt.Ltd. It/Ites Sez, Koba Gandhinagar – 382 421 Pan : Aaycs 8711 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Assessee By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

section 10B(8), that the twin requirements of (i) furnishing the prescribed declaration/report, and (ii) furnishing it before the due date under section 139(1), are mandatory and have to be cumulatively satisfied, failing which the benefit cannot be allowed. 8.1. The learned DR further submitted that, without prejudice ... that the requirements of furnishing the prescribed declaration and doing so before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) are mandatory. However, as rightly pointed out in Croygas Equipments (supra), the said decision was rendered on materially different facts, in that case, the assessee had claimed

Saumitra Kumar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Circle 12, Pune, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1520/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1520/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Saumitra Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. Hig 111, Sector E, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024. Pan : Bcmpk7370J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naman Maloo (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Indore [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In, Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao(Cpc) In Disallowing The Credit Of Taxes Paid Outside India While Processing The Return Of Income (Foreign Tax Credit, "Ftc") Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Such Rejection Is Beyond The Purview Of Section 143(1). The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal & Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please

For Appellant: Shri Naman Maloo (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

Form No.67 was not filed within the due date for filing of the return of income as specified under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Admittedly, in the present case, Form No.67 was not filed within the due date for filing ... return of income under the provisions of section 139(1), but Form No.67 was filed on 23.03.2020. The CPC, Bangalore had processed the return of income as on 18.02.2021, which means that Form No.67 was very much available with the CPC, Bangalore. Therefore, the CPC, Bangalore cannot deny the claim

Gifts Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Suryoday Small Finance Bank Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3819/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Ms. Padmavathy S.: A.Y. : 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 43B

deductible only in the year of actual payment subject to the same being paid before the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act. It is submitted that the CIT(A) has found on fact that the appellant did not produce any evidence to substantiate

St. Thomas Church, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 296/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 296/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) St Thomas Church V/S. Income Tax Officer 1, Church Road, बिाम (Exemptions) Ward 2(4), Goregaon (East), Mumbai Mumbai 400063 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai 400026. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4878R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel-Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL

Kusum Dube, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7444/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54F

order noted that the return declaring total income of Rs.66,070/- was filed with ITO, Ward- 3(4), Gurgaon by the assessee under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 04.08.2015 (date wrongly noted in the assessment order as 26.07.2015) which ... learned Counsel that the pre-condition of Section 124(3) is that where the assessee has made a return of income under Section 139(1) and that AO has issued under Section 143(2) of the Act, he can raise the objection within one month. The relevant provisions of Section

Harmander Singh Sran, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 29, New Delhi

ITA 4018/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

ITA No.4018/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI

Suresh Nag Yadav, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1, Ranchi

In the result, ITA No. 08/RAN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.08 To 12/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2016-17 Suresh Nag Yadav……………......................…...........................……….……Appellant Yadav Bhawan, Karatoli, Jharkhand - 834008. [Pan: Aafpy5311D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. K. Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 28.11.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures & Assessment Years, All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We Proceed To Deal With Ita No. 08/Ran/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 & Our Findings Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.37,56,390. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 29.11.2018 At The Business & Residential Premises Of The Assessee. In Consequence Thereof, A Notice Under Section 153A Of The Act Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.05.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,56,390/-, Including Additional Income Of Rs.1,00,000 Disclosed

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals. 2. Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 declaring a total income of Rs.37,56,390. A search and seizure operation under section

Suresh Nag Yadav, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, ITA No. 08/RAN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. Nos.08 To 12/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2016-17 Suresh Nag Yadav……………......................…...........................……….……Appellant Yadav Bhawan, Karatoli, Jharkhand - 834008. [Pan: Aafpy5311D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. K. Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 13, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 28.11.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17 Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variations In Figures & Assessment Years, All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. First We Proceed To Deal With Ita No. 08/Ran/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 & Our Findings Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.37,56,390. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 29.11.2018 At The Business & Residential Premises Of The Assessee. In Consequence Thereof, A Notice Under Section 153A Of The Act Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.05.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,56,390/-, Including Additional Income Of Rs.1,00,000 Disclosed

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals. 2. Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 declaring a total income of Rs.37,56,390. A search and seizure operation under section

The Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No 1449 Erickavu, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 502/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Kumarapuram Service .......... Appellant Cooperative Bank Ltd No. 1449, Erickavu P.O., Karthikappally, Alappuzha, Kerala [Pan: Aaabt 3036 B] Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sabu C S, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Kumarapuram

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 196/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

271F of the Act were initiated upon the assessee on account of non- furnishing of return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration and accordingly was levied for Rs. 5000/- against the assessee. The AO noticed that during

Pooran Singh, Dholpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 195/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

271F of the Act were initiated upon the assessee on account of non- furnishing of return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration and accordingly was levied for Rs. 5000/- against the assessee. The AO noticed that during