← All Phrases

“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

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. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

Magnolia Martinique Clothing Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 17, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4292/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Dushayant Chaudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

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

Magnolia Martinique Clothing Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 17, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4291/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Dushayant Chaudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

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

Magnolia Martinique Clothing Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4290/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Dushayant Chaudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

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

Hillview Technologies Private Limited, Laxmi Nagar Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 3326/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, B: NEW DELHI BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Radhika Garg, Hathras vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhika Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14/100, Kambhu Tola Ward-2(1)(3), Hospital Road, Hathras, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afepg2999H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292B

proceeded to complete the reassessment proceedings under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act after issuing show-cause notice under section 142(1) of the Act due to non-cooperative attitude of the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings. Ultimately, the reassessment stood completed

Vision & Vision Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. Acut/ DCIT Circle 1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.183/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vision & Vision Pvt. Ltd.…….……………............................……….……Appellant Block No.2, Ambika Tower, Main Road Shastri Nagar, Jamshedpur – 831005. [Pan: Aabcv5072B] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur ..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit), Ranchi, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 31.03.2025 For A.Y. 2018–19. The Assessee Challenges The Legality & Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Pcit & The Consequent Revision Of The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Dated 27.03.2023. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹11,95,030. The Return Was Initially Processed U/S 143(1). Later, Based On Information Shared By The Ddit (Investigation), Kolkata, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Had Received An Accommodation Entry Of ₹1,18,61,425 From M/S Kuldeepak Enterprises During The Year. On This Basis, The Ao Reopened The

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri

Innovative Telecom and Softwares Private Ltd, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 796/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.796/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Innovative Telecom & Vs. Acit, Softwares Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(1), O/21-22, Kanaknidhi Apartment, Surat Nanpura, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci8036R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren M. Diwan, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Anjaneyulu Reddy Ammireddy, Vinukonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Narasaraopet

ITA 542/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.542/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Anjaneyulu Reddy Ammireddy, Income Tax Officer, Vinukonda. Ward-1, Pan: Aelpa3332C Narasaraopet. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 25/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 29/02/2024. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member

Amli Mohammed Taj, Kurnool vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Guntur

ITA 397/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.397/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Amli Mohammed Taj, Vs. Dcit, Kurnool. Central Circle-2, Pan: Achpt2412N Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 06/11/2025 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 04/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 19/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 154Section 69A

income. However, the assessee failed to file his return of income in compliance to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 18/08/2021, calling upon 4 Amli Mohammed Taj vs. DCIT the assessee to furnish certain information which was filed

Sree Pazhanchira Devi Temple, Trivandrum vs. Assessing Officer, Exemption Ward, Tvm

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

ITA 826/COCH/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sree Pazhanchira Devi Temple Trust .......... Appellant Poonthura P.O., Ambalathara Thiruvananthapuram 695026 [Pan: Aamts1272L] Vs. Ito (Exemption), Thiruvananthapuram ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 138Section 142(1)Section 148

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

Dinesh Kumar, Behror vs. ITO Behror, Behror

ITA 919/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR (through V.C.)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks

Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/JPR/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

issued to the assessee after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur accorded on 23.07.2022. Thereafter, notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) and Show Cause Notice were issued on various dates. In compliance to the above notices, the assessee furnished ledger, bank statement

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Vijeta Lodha, Jaipur

58. As a result, the impugned order by Learned CIT(A) deleting the

ITA 390/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. (through V.C.)For Respondent: None
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"A-Bench" JAIPUR श्री गगन गोयल

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

Santosh Shankar Gujar, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3), Pune, Akurdi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2038/PUN/2024[2013 - 2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1654 & 2038/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Santosh Shankar Gujar, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. H/No.246, Shiv Parvati Bunglow, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon- 411033. Pan : Alnpg9944K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mrs. Vibha D. Gulabani Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2024 & 29.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1654/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2014-15 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Mrs. Vibha D. GulabaniFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 54F

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

Santosh Shankar Gujar, Near Vitthal Rukmini Mandir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3), Pune, Akurdi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1654/PUN/2024[2014 - 2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1654 & 2038/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Santosh Shankar Gujar, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. H/No.246, Shiv Parvati Bunglow, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon- 411033. Pan : Alnpg9944K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mrs. Vibha D. Gulabani Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2024 & 29.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1654/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2014-15 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Mrs. Vibha D. GulabaniFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 54F

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

Supriya Nagendla, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1521/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1521/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Smt. Supriya Nagendla Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 4(1) Pan:Aaupn8127B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Assessee Smt. Supriya Nagendla राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Abhinav Pitta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Supriya Nagendla (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 05.08.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Assessee Smt. Supriya NagendlaFor Respondent: : Shri Abhinav Pitta, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17(3)

gross salary of Rs.61,29,902/-, she had declared only Rs.26,58,124/- as gross salary in the return. Upon further enquiry under section 142(1) of the Act, the Ld. AO found that the assessee had received Rs.26,97,912/- towards Severance Compensation and claimed the entire severance compensation

Sri Gowri Sankara Sagara (Uppara) Anna Sathra Sangham, Kurnool vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1507/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

large voluntary contributions reported in the return. Accordingly, notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 23.09.2019, followed by notices under Section 142(1) dated 13.11.2019, 18.11.2020, and a further letter dated 31.12.2020, calling for details in support of the return and for explanation on the issues identified for scrutiny

Hitec Cyberspazio LLP, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1206/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notices under section 143(2) ofc the Act, dated 01/06/2023, and under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 19/07/2023, 10/02/2024 and 26/02/2024, calling upon the assessee firm to substantiate based on supporting documentary evidence the investments made in purchase