← 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)

Dhl Global Forwarding Freight Shared Services (India) LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT)-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Dhl Global Forwarding V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Freight Shared Services बनाम Income Tax (Pcit) – 41, Room (India) Llp No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 5Th Floor, A Wing 247 Park, To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Lbs Road, Vikhroli West, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400083, Maharashtra Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapfd3128F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain a/w S.Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40a

accordance with the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. Further, the AO during assessment proceedings had issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act (Sr. No. 13 of Page 90 of Paper Book) and inquired about the said facts. The assessee had submitted the detailed reply against

Relationship Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2067/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Relationship Properties Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), 41-44, Sp Centre, Minoo V Mumbai Desai Marg, Colaba, S Mumbai – 400005. Pan/Gir No. Aadcr8947D (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rushav PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Relationship

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

Ajay Mittal, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Rewari, Rewari

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

ITA 5510/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No:- 5510/Del/2025

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

transferred to the Ld. AO vide order under Section 127 of the Act dated 14.11.2022 by Ld. PCIT, Delhi-15. The notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 17.11.2022 was issued. During the course of search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act at the premises ... property at 451, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi-110092, fixing sale consideration at Rs.9,58,00,000/- was paid in cash. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 25.11.2022 was issued. Show-cause-notice dated 25.12.2022 was issued. The assessee filed reply vide letter dated 27.12.2022. On completion

Sanjeev Kumar, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-4 Panipat, Panipat

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 314/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.314/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2011-12) Sanjeev Kumar, 13, Vpo Ugra Kheri, Panipat, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Haryana 132103 Pan: Asvpk-4205-C बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-6, Panipat, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haryana 132103 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Kumar Mittal, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.11.2024, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Shri Mukesh Kumar Mittal, Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessment U/S.148 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Vide Order Dated 30.11.2018 In Ex-Parte Proceedings. He Contended That As Per The Assessment Order, The Ao Had Issued Notice U/S.148 Of The Act On 31.03.2018 Through Speed Post As Well As Online

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Kumar Mittal, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Deepak Communication, Ajit Nagar vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 3076/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3076/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18) Deepak Communication, Gali No.4, Ajit Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Delhi 110031 Pan: Aamfd-3905-A बनाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-60(6), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue, In The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Against Levy Of Penalty U/S.271Aac(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Amounting To Rs.1,04,674/-. The Assesssee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.13,55,000/- During Demonetization Period I.E. Between 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account Maintained With Yes Bank Ltd. Krishna Nagar Delhi, Account No. 226190000295. The Return Of Income Was Filed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Jwil Infra Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1831/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Care Today Fund, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemption 1(3), Civic Centre New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5734/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Care Today Fund, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-26, First Floor, Exemption 1(3), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-1100 01 Pan :Aaatc3762B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 80G(5)(vi)

during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed to have applied amount of Rs.1,89,64,378/- for charitable purpose. Vide notice under Section 142(1) dated 19.12.2019, explanation to specific queries raised was sought. The assessee filed his replies accordingly. On completion of proceeding, Ld. AO vide order dated

Flint Power Tools (P) Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5642/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Flint Power Tools (P) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Plot Nos. 594, 595, Central Circle-1, Sector 8 Imt Manesar, Faridabad-I, New-1 Gurugram, Haryana Pan: Aadcn0078K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA & Shri AnkitFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250(6)Section 37

response to this notice, the assessee filed its ITR, declaring income of Rs.2,33,45,110/- on 01.04.2023. Notice under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act along with a questionnaire was issued. In response to notice and questionnaire, assessee filed replies and submissions. On completion of assessment proceedings

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office vs. Ritu Bala, Faridabda

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3621/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Ritu Bala, Vs. Faridabad 4237 Indra Prashtha Colony, Haryana Faridabad – 121 001 Haryana Pan :Bdhpb1495B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 69C

during the financial year 2017-18 relevant to assessment year 2018-19. Intimation Letter under Section 144B dated 17.08.2022 was issued. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 23.01.2023 and 01.02.2023 were issued to Assessee. Show-cause-notice dated 13.02.2023 and 16.03.2023 were issued. The assessee furnished partial ... assessment year 2018-19. No return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 148. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 23.01.2023 to furnish the reply on or before 04.02.2023. In response there to no reply filed

Tata Teleservices Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2549/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2549/Del./2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Tata Teleservices Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Jeevan Bharati Tower-1, Income Tax, Circle-25(1), 10Th Floor, Vs. C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 24, Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaact2438A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Best City Projects India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5294/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/S Best City Projects India Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.385A, C.R. Building, Plot No.H-8, 1St Floor, Best Vs New Delhi110002 Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 Pan-Aaccb7635D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 254Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Nikita Gupta, Alirajpur vs. ITO-2, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 255/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshinikita Gupta, Income Tax Officer-2, C/O Lb Gold, Ratlam Csa Marg, Vs. Alirajpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpg0456K Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am:

Section 144Section 44ASection 69

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, इंदौर"यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT

Janta Co Operative Credit Limited, Chapora vs. Income Tax Officer, Burhanpur

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 244/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

aire ardteier aritracr, salt saree, galt IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata vs. Raic Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 1880/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Udayan Dasgupta & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 1879/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 & I.T.A. No. 1880/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Appellant Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 315, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Raic Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited,………………………………………………..Respondent 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aaccb3462A Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153ASection 250

ITA Nos. 1879/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) & ITA Nos. 1880/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2019-2020) RAIC Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited IN THE

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Raic Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 1879/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Udayan Dasgupta & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 1879/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 & I.T.A. No. 1880/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Appellant Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 315, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Raic Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited,………………………………………………..Respondent 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aaccb3462A Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153ASection 250

ITA Nos. 1879/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) & ITA Nos. 1880/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2019-2020) RAIC Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited IN THE

Partha Roy, West Bengal vs. ITO, Ward - 50(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per direction given above

ITA 2700/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyshri Rakesh Mishra & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Partha Roy…………..………….…….………………….……….……….……Appellant 923/1, Ashok Nagar, Barasat, W.B-743232. [Pan: Awepr4888F] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Asim Dey, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 24, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

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

Vishal Krishna, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2258/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2258/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vishal Krishna, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. T-27, New No. T-3, Income Tax, 12Th Street, Anna Nagar S.O., Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Aagpv0851L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 105 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reason that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 05.07.2019 3 I.T.A. No.2258/Chny/25 calling for details. The assessee filed return of income on 04.09.2019 in compliance

Sun Ark Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corporate Circle, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2071/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2071/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Sun Ark Aluminium Income Tax Officer, Industries Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle, No.22, Chairman A, Madurai. Shanmugam Road, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Aalcs3262Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Revenue By : Mr.C.P.Solomon, Jcit.

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Solomon, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्रीएम.बालगणेश, लेखासदस्यकेसमक्षएवं. श्रीएसएसववश्वनेत्ररवव, न्याययकसदस्य