← 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)

H Srinivas Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 623/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundar P, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

respond is within the scheme of the Act and has no bearing on limitation. It was also pointed out that notices under section 142(1) issued earlier had been sent to the correct address and hence there was no basis to allege irregular service. In conclusion, the Assessing Officer submitted ... documents filed during the search proceedings including the Panchanama and sworn statements. The assessee points out that while earlier statutory notices under section 142(1) and notices of attachment under section 226 were properly sent to the correct address, the final assessment orders, demand notices, and penalty notices were suddenly

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gm Modular Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2942/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S, Hon’Bledy. Cit Circle 1(1)(1), G M Modular Private Limited, Mumbai 405 Shalimar Morya Park Vs. Premises Chs Ltd., Off. New Link Road, Andheri, Azad Nagar S.O, Mumbai 400 053. Pan Aabcg3313Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Swapni Choudhary- Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rushabh Mehta
Section 142(1)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI Before Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble President & Ms

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Imran, Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

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

Govardhan Singh, Aligarh vs. ITO 4(1)(3) Aligarh, Aligarh

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 57/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Inder Malhotra, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, ITA No. 243, 244 & 245/Agr/2025 are allowed for

ITA 245/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Inder Malhotra, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, ITA No. 243, 244 & 245/Agr/2025 are allowed for

ITA 244/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Inder Malhotra, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, ITA No. 243, 244 & 245/Agr/2025 are allowed for

ITA 243/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel, at Po Umarda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Surendranagar, Income Tax Office Irish Building

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

ITA 382/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Surendranagar, Income Tax Near Swaminarayan Mandir, At Umarda, Vs. Office, Irish Building, Opp. Mela Ta.Muli, Dist. Surendranagar-363 510 Medan, Surendranagar-363 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brjpp 6166 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pinal Raval, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimunyu Singh Yadav, Sr.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

failure to file the return was neither intentional nor with any mollified intention to evade tax. However, upon issuance of notice under Section 142(1), the assessee submitted necessary financial statements including the balance sheet, profit & loss account, trading account, capital account, and bank statements to establish the source

Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Jamnagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 27/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

respect of issue raised by the Ld. PCIT or not. We note that the first notice issued by the Assessing Officer, under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 10.08.2022, which is placed at page 39 of the paper book, wherein the relevant part of the notice (for our analysis

Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria, Jamnagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 26/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

respect of issue raised by the Ld. PCIT or not. We note that the first notice issued by the Assessing Officer, under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 10.08.2022, which is placed at page 39 of the paper book, wherein the relevant part of the notice (for our analysis

Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala, Jamnagar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

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

ITA 103/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.103/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala The Pr.Cit बनाम Maniar Street, Lindi Bazar Jamanagar. Jamnagar-361001 Vs. Pan : Aatpv 4729 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

opening and closing balances were correctly explained before the assessing officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings in response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, and therefore, the AO has conducted sufficient inquiries about the issue raised by the ld.Pr.CIT. The assessee submitted the sufficient evidences

Shri Jagdishbhai Gordhanbhai Doabariya, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 142/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.142/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jagdishbhai Gordhanbhai Dobariya The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम “Ramdev”2, Jivnath Park,B/H. Panchvati Aayakar Bhavan, Race Hall,Panchvati Main Road,Nr.Gandhi Vs. Course Ring Road, School,Rajkot 360 001 Rajkot. Pan : Abrpd8654R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

given by the assessee. The ld.Counsel took us through page no.43 of the paper book, where the notice issued by the AO under section 142(1) of the Act, is placed, wherein the AO has raised pertinent question, which is reproduced below: “2. You have claimed a deduction ... paid. 7. Amount of interest paid. 8. T.D.S. Deducted.” ITA No.142 /RJT/2023 Shri Jagdishbhai Gordhanbhai Doabariya 6 9.In response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 09.03.2020, the assessee submitted its reply before the assessing officer, vide letter dated 18.06.2020. The relevant portion of the reply

Tulsi Jewellers, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer - Ward 5, Navsari

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 947/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Tulsi Jewellers, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Navsari

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 946/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Vijay Bhandari, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-7, Vapi

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

ITA 747/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.747/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Vijay Bhandari, Vs. Ito, Mataji Enterprises Shop No. Ug- National Faceless Assessment 17, Bhilad Plaza Shopping Centre Centre, Bhilad, Bhilad - 396105 Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajtpb2990E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 44ASection 68

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Kaniyalal Savljibhai Rajpurohit, Kosamba vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1083/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1083/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Kaniyalal Savljibhai Rajpurohit Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, बनाम/ Gangasagar Apartment Bardoli, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Vs. Tarsadi, Mangrol, Surat-394 Floor, Bsnl Building, Opp. Jalaram 120 Temple, Station Road, Bardoli-394 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aylpr 4526 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mayur Thakkar, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 15/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

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

Pakalapati Padma Jyothi, West Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.275/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pakalapati Padma Jyothi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 D.No. 1-17, Singarajupalem Income Tax Office Muthyalamma Gudi Street Aayakar Bhawan Avapadu, Nellajerla D.No. 2-1-56/1, K.N. Road West Godavari District Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Blwpp5193B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparnavilluri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

Assessee filed return of income on 01.06.2022 and declared total income at Rs.3,05,670/-. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued requiring the assessee to submit certain details as called for. In response, on 02.06.2022 &24.08.2023assessee furnished part reply. After considering the submissions

Sudharani Surisetty, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.166/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sudharani Surisetty V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 29-2-34, Opposite Judge Court Flat No. 401, 4Th Floor Main, Dabagardens Prathyakshar Bhawan Prakasharaopeta Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530020 Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Cnbps4046N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparnavilluri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250

income on 08.04.2022 and declared total income at Rs.4,11,580/-. The return was considered as invalid by the Ld.AO. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued requiring Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.166/VIZ/2025 Sudharani Surisetty the assessee to submit certain details as called for. In response

G S Real Estate and Allied Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1- Dewas, Dewas

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 222/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 69A

Bangalore. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, and notice under section 143(2) was issued on 11.08.2018, followed by several notices under section 142(1) but the appellant failed to respond. As a result, the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, based

Gyan Prakash Tiwari, Rajgarh vs. ITO, Shajapur

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 563/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Boradgyan Prakash Tiwari, Income Tax Officer, Talab Mohalla Chhapiheda, Shajapur Vs. Rajgarh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abupt8470C Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI