← 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)

Suhasit Star Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-15(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and that of

ITA 4623/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla,AR (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

taxmann.com 434 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that where the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the AO, then section 124(3)(a) of the Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction ... does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 142(1). 7. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the case. We find that the return filed with ITO, 15(3)(4),Mumbai, was duly processed u/s 143(1

Urmish M. Udani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal/Shri Fenil Bhatt, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

31/03/2011 declaring a total income of Rs.67,33,525. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act and concluded the assessment vide order dated 24/08/2012 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act computing ... would come into play when a return is furnished under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Clause (i) to section 143(2) of the Act is not relevant for the year under consideration. Insofar as clause (ii) to section

Kasiraj Rengappa, Tamilnadu vs. ITO, Ward Int. Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Kasiraj Rengappa Vs Ito, 6313, Clover Hill Drive, Ward-1(1)(1) San Jose Foreign, International Taxation, United States Of America Or Civic Centre, Minto Road, [Indian Address] - 3/226, New Delhi-110002. Navaneethkrishnapuram Sevlkulam, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-627754. Pan-Brjpr2094A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri T.Vasudevan, Adv. (Through Vc) Respondent By Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.12.2021 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi-42 [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-42/10502/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Nri & Earned Income From Interest Only During The Year & Filed His Return Of Income On 17.03.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 85,320/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Acton 24.09.2018. Thereafter Notices Were Issued U/S 142(1) In Response To Which Assessee Filed Reply From Time To Time. The Ao Observed That Assessee Deposited Cash In Sbn During Demonetization Period From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 Into His Bank Account With State Bank Of India, Nro Account No.33350651335 Of Inr 22,50,000/-. After Considering The Submission Filed, Ao Passed The Order On 26.12.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Inr 23,35,320/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

ITA No.414/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “D” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Ajay Kumar, Saran, Bihar vs. ITO, Chapra

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

ITA 402/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [Virtual Court] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH

Madhur Laxman Gadikar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemadhur Laxman Gadikar, Kharbikar Mohalla, House No.426–B Ward No.27, Golibar Chowk ……………. Appellant Jaganath Gol, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra, Pan – Avzpg3725G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(1), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Madhur Laxman Gadikar, Kharbikar

Devi Sea Foods Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 316/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 263

outstanding forward contracts. He further submitted that the Ld. AO Page. No 6 LT.A.No.316/VIZ/2025 M/s. Devi Sea Foods Limited =* issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 29.10.2021 has specifically in Question No.6 requested the assessee to furnish the foreign currency fluctuations. He further submitted that assessee ... exchange loss in accordance with the ICDS-VI before the Ld. AO. Further he also submitted that the Ld. AO vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 22.02.2022, after considering the assessee reply submitted on 08.11.2021 has specifically requested the assessee to submit the details of Rs.15

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Snf India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

ITA 210/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited 19 Jnpc, Ramky Pharmacity Paravada, Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] Vs. Dcit - Circle – 3(1) Income Tax Office Infinity Towers, Sankarmat Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.209 & 210/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit - Circle – 3(1) 35,50-92-35, Sankaramatam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh, Beside Reliance Fresh, Nearby Main Road Madhuranagar, Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 Vs. M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited Plot No. 19 Ponnuru Village, Parawada Mandal Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 01.09.2025 08.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') was issued on 23.08.2018. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 08.11.2019. It was observed from the Form-3CEB report that the assessee has entered into international transaction with

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Snf India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

ITA 209/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited 19 Jnpc, Ramky Pharmacity Paravada, Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] Vs. Dcit - Circle – 3(1) Income Tax Office Infinity Towers, Sankarmat Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.209 & 210/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit - Circle – 3(1) 35,50-92-35, Sankaramatam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh, Beside Reliance Fresh, Nearby Main Road Madhuranagar, Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 Vs. M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited Plot No. 19 Ponnuru Village, Parawada Mandal Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 01.09.2025 08.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') was issued on 23.08.2018. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 08.11.2019. It was observed from the Form-3CEB report that the assessee has entered into international transaction with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Visakhapatnam

ITA 374/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.374/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Raja Rao Parachuri, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aatpp2493B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: P. Murali & Co राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 07/08/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 08/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

For Appellant: P. Murali & CoFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

1 DCIT vs. Raja Rao Parachuri आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Penamaluru

ITA 278/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 69

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

Pradeep Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT-Central Circle-2, Jaipur

25. As a result, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 937/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), While Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019, Passed By The Assessing Officer, As Regards Assessment Year 2017-18. That Appeal Came To Be Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, dated 1.10.2019 is stated to have been issued and served upon the assessee. Then notice under section 142(1) dated 1.10.2019 was issued to the assessee, and he furnished information 3 Pradeep Jain, Jaipur and details pertaining to the case. Subsequently also, such

Usha Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 320/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ySection 234ASection 234B

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur(CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. Shri Karaj Singh, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 726/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 Shri Karaj Singh बनाम/ Cr Building Sector 17 H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti Vs. Chandigarh 160017 Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. Co. No. 16/Chandi/2024 [In Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Karaj Singh Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti, Cr Building Sector 17 Vs. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) Chandigarh 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (Cross-Objector) : (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Mahendrakumar R. Punjabi, Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Prithu Parimal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

returns, 5. Appropriate statutory registrations (if any) that authorize dealing in securities on behalf of third parties. Despite repeated opportunities including notices under section 142(1) and summonses under section 131(1A) there is no verifiable documentation on record showing that these were genuine trades on behalf of other individuals

Pharmanza Herbal Private Limited, Dharmaj vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-1, Vaodara

ITA 749/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Veeraballi Naga Basi Reddy, Kadapa vs. ITO., Ward - 1, Kadapa

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.451/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Veeraballi Naga Basi Reddy, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward 1, Kadapa. Kadapa. Pan: Aszpr1589G (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Sri Edupayala Vana Durga Bhavani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

ITA 399/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act nor complied to the notice(s) issued under section 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the A.O was constrained to complete the assessment under section 144 r.w section 147 of the Act, wherein after treating

Mohd Azgar Ali, Nalgonda vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 1283/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

comply with the notice issued under Section 148 by filing the return of income. Therefore, the A.O. issued various notices under Section 142(1) of the Act and also show cause notice under Section 144(1) and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment 3 Mohd ... response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act nor filed any details in response to various notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act to explain the source for cash deposits in the bank account. Since the assessment proceedings before the A.O. are ex parte

Pellucid Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4372/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Pellucid Securities Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax Appeal, (Nfac) 301, Turf View, National Faceless Appeal 63, Dadarkar Compound, Centre – Ito Ward 7(3)(1), Vs. Tardeo, Ab-126J, Mumbai Aayakar Bhawan, Maharashtra - 400034 Churchgate, Pan: Aafcp1405L Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.10.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 183 Days In Filing This Appeal, As Pointed Out By The Registry, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed That Due To Non-Receipt Of The Impugned Order On Its Email Registered As Well As In Physical Form, The Delay Has Been Occurred, Which Was Neither Intentional Nor Malafide But Because Of The Aforesaid Reason.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014