← All Phrases

“Section 139(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(4)938 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(4) is Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), cited in 691 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(4)

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan
263 ITR 706 · 2003 · Supreme Court
691
citing judgments

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali
90 ITR 271 · 1973 · Supreme Court
232
citing judgments

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT
108 ITR 345 · 1977 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court
179
citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

CIT v. Lancy Constructions
237 Taxmann 728 · 2016 · High Court
146
citing judgments

A High Court's decision that approves an ITAT's ruling, which was based on another case, is considered in later judicial pronouncements concerning assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association
247 ITR 201 · 2001 · Supreme Court
112
citing judgments

While there is no statutory time limit for filing Form 10 to claim exemption for income accumulation under Section 11(2), it must be furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings for the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption.

Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT
15 SOT 252 · 2007 · ITAT
111
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must grant the correct deduction after due verification of claims made by the assessee, even if not perfectly articulated initially. This principle applies in assessment proceedings, including those involving specific deductions like those for export-oriented units under Section 10B.

Judgments citing Section 139(4)

Doctor Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth Karamchari Pat Sanstha Mryat, Akola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Akola

ITA 331/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 80ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Moonak Welfare Society, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sunam

In the result, we direct the AO to allow the exemption u/s 11 to the assessee society

ITA 465/CHANDI/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). 3.1 It Was Submitted During The Appellate Proceedings That The Cpc, Bangalore While Processing The Return Of Income Has Disallowed The Exemption On The Ground That Tax Audit Report In Form 10B Should Have Been Filed One Month Prior To The Filing

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

above mentioned subject stating that while processing of ITR-7 for the A.Y. 2018-19, in respect of the belated returns filed under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), the following is being communicated under section 143(/)(o) of the Act:— "As per section ... 139 of the Act has been mentioned and it does not specify whether it is about u/s 139(1) of the Act or section 139(4) of the Act and even if the assessee files the return before the last date of filing of belated return, the same should

Ramakrishna Rao, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

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

ITA 447/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Taxes on 18th August, 2022. The time limit for filing the Form 67 was before the last date of filing the return under section 139(4) of the Act and the method of filing Form 67 was prescribed on 19.09.2017. Further we find that the method of filing Form ... filing the return of income by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the last date for filing the return under section 139( 4) of the Act for A.Y. 2017- 18 was 31. 03. 2019 and the assessee filed Form 67 on 28. 09. 2018 alongwith revised return

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

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

ITA 446/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Taxes on 18th August, 2022. The time limit for filing the Form 67 was before the last date of filing the return under section 139(4) of the Act and the method of filing Form 67 was prescribed on 19.09.2017. Further we find that the method of filing Form ... filing the return of income by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the last date for filing the return under section 139( 4) of the Act for A.Y. 2017- 18 was 31. 03. 2019 and the assessee filed Form 67 on 28. 09. 2018 alongwith revised return

Bijender Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

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

ITA 445/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Taxes on 18th August, 2022. The time limit for filing the Form 67 was before the last date of filing the return under section 139(4) of the Act and the method of filing Form 67 was prescribed on 19.09.2017. Further we find that the method of filing Form ... filing the return of income by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the last date for filing the return under section 139( 4) of the Act for A.Y. 2017- 18 was 31. 03. 2019 and the assessee filed Form 67 on 28. 09. 2018 alongwith revised return

Cheniappan Ramadurai, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1335/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1335/Chny/2023 & Ita Nos.1338/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & Ay-2019-20

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्िनेत्र रवि

Amrutur Ningaiah Gangadharaiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 748/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amrutur Ningaiah Gangadharaiah, 151, 6Th Cross, The Income Tax Bapuji Layout, Officer, Attiguppe, Ward – 3(3)(3), Vijayanagar S.O., Bangalore. Bengaluru North, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan: Adppg1594H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 253Section 5Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Purushotham Naidu Lekkala, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.608/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Purushotham Naidu Vs. A.C.I.T Lekkala Central Circle 3(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Abgpl4958H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H Srinivasulu,Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri H Srinivasulu,AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhania, DR
Section 119Section 132Section 139(4)Section 153ASection 65B(4)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laliet

Juniper Investments Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.O. Cir. 7, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the assessee has filed its return of income under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act on 20.12.2022. This return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act vide order dated

Shri. Narayana Muralidhar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 727/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Ashok Parmar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Laly Chirakandathil George, Kochi vs. The ACIT, Kochi

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

ITA 73/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Laly Chirakandathil George The Acit Corp. Circle 1(2) Kattarukudiyil, Rmv Road, Kochi Vs. Elamakara, Kochi-26

For Appellant: Shri Mathew JosephFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 74(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Laly

Shri Mahudi Madhupuri Jain Nsm Bhojanshala & Prashadi Bhavan, Mahudi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

dispute to the fact that the assessee has filed its return of income for this year within the time limit of section 139(4) of the Act. Therefore, the department was not correct in denying the exemption u/s11 of the Act while processing the return. 11. The Circular ... demand raised u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. As the assessee had filed its return of income within the time limit of section 139(4) of the Act, it was eligible for benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. It has been held by the Ld. ITAT, Rajkot

Satpuda Foundation, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 143/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Deputy Commissioner of Inome Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 454/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1523/Hyd/2019 & 393/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Nama Seetaiah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Aaupn8501F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Shri Nama Seetaiah Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaupn8501F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against, The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) 12 Hyderabad Even Dated 22.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132

ITA Nos 1523 393 454 Nama Seetaiah आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 393/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1523/Hyd/2019 & 393/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Nama Seetaiah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Aaupn8501F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Shri Nama Seetaiah Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaupn8501F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against, The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) 12 Hyderabad Even Dated 22.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132

ITA Nos 1523 393 454 Nama Seetaiah आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Nama Seetaiah, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1523/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1523/Hyd/2019 & 393/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Nama Seetaiah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Aaupn8501F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Shri Nama Seetaiah Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaupn8501F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against, The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Cit (A) 12 Hyderabad Even Dated 22.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132

ITA Nos 1523 393 454 Nama Seetaiah आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Shivananda Patil, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 32/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Taxes on 18th August, 2022. The time limit for filing the Form 67 was before the last date of filing the return under section 139(4) of the Act and the method of filing Form 67 was prescribed on 19.09.2017. Further we find that the method of filing Form ... filing the return of income by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the last date for filing the return under section 139( 4) of the Act for A.Y. 2017- 18 was 31. 03. 2019 and the assessee filed Form 6 I.T.A. No. 30 to 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year

Shivananda Pati, Jalpaiguri vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 31/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Taxes on 18th August, 2022. The time limit for filing the Form 67 was before the last date of filing the return under section 139(4) of the Act and the method of filing Form 67 was prescribed on 19.09.2017. Further we find that the method of filing Form ... filing the return of income by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the last date for filing the return under section 139( 4) of the Act for A.Y. 2017- 18 was 31. 03. 2019 and the assessee filed Form 6 I.T.A. No. 30 to 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year

Shivananda Patil, Jalpaiguri vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 30/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Taxes on 18th August, 2022. The time limit for filing the Form 67 was before the last date of filing the return under section 139(4) of the Act and the method of filing Form 67 was prescribed on 19.09.2017. Further we find that the method of filing Form ... filing the return of income by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the last date for filing the return under section 139( 4) of the Act for A.Y. 2017- 18 was 31. 03. 2019 and the assessee filed Form 6 I.T.A. No. 30 to 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year