← 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)

Urveen Shivprasad Vyas, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1119/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-2019 Urveen Shivprasad Vyas The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 2, Dev Vihar-H Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Vrundavan Bungalows Thaltej-Shilaj Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Ablpv 7563 R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Prithu Parimal, Advocate : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Prithu Parimal, Advocate
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

company, without any transaction-specific adverse inference. The assessee submitted that despite filing detailed responses to notices dated 28.09.2022, 01.11.2022, and 24.02.2023 under section 142(1), the AO proceeded to complete the assessment without rebutting the evidences filed. No material relied upon by the AO (including SEBI alerts, investigation reports

Vijaysingh Nanusingh Rathore, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1110/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Vijaysingh Manusingh Rathore The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 130, Kalhar Exotica Vs. Ahmedabad. Science City Road Thaltej, Ahmedabad Gujarat – 380 059. Pan : Adkpr 5315 C (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद

Rajendra Shakharam Badgujar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1087/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Mr.Rajendra Shakharam Badgujar The Ito, Ward-5(3)(2) 42, Jay Raghunath Society Vs. Vejalpur Priya Cinema Road Ahmedabad. Krushnanagar Saijpur Ahmedabad 382 346. Pan : Afupb 1181 J (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Shah, AR
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद

Jayvanti Janardan Bhanuskar, Raigad vs. ACIT, Circle-Panvel, Panvel

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

ITA 890/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Parbhani vs. ITO, Ward- Hingoli, Hingoli

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

ITA 781/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Sayala Khating, Tq. Dist. Tax Department, Nfac, Parbhani- 431402. Delhi. Pan : Czcps6546Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 142(1)Section 145Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Shamrao Gopal Benake, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1036/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Gousmahammad Anwar Gavandi, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 712/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 131Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Maddor Boraiah Shiva Kumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 201/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sheela M G, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40Section 68

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

Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 3511/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 32A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH 'E', MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Evergreen Infrastructures, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3171/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR) a/w
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Evergreen Infrastructures, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3170/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR) a/w
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Naresh Kumar, Balachaur vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahr, Nawanshar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 59/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 221(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. BRAJESH KUMAR

Rajulhoubienuo Angami, Nagaland vs. ITO Ward 2, Dimapur

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Hon'Ble Tribunal Assailing The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. Cit(A)"]. That The Due Date For Filing The Appeal Was 24Th August, 2024. However, There Has Been An Unintentional Delay Of 166 Days (Upto 13Th February, 2025), In Filing The Present Appeal, For Which The Appellant, With Utmost Humility, Seeks The Indulgence Of This Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Said Delay On The Grounds Set Forth Herein. 2. It Is Submitted That The Mr. Shivendu Maharaj Is The Accountant Of The Appellant Who Looks After The Tax Portal & Email Updates. The Accountant Also Forwards The Needful To The Chartered Accountant, Mr. Ajit Jain, To Take Necessary Action In Response To Any Notice That Is Received.

Section 10(26)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

opening words referred to "a return being made under Section 139 of the Act or in response to a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. Thus plain reading of Section 143(2) of the Act, which talks about issuance of notice where return has been furnished and Section

Nuju Basheer, Alappuzha vs. ITO Ward 3, Alappuzha

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

ITA 550/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nuju Basheer .......... Appellant Kannelapuzhakkal, Ayaparambu Cheruthana P.O.. Alappuzha 690517 [Pan: Biwpb7526F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-3, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.11.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Dairy Farming, Cultivation Of Coconuts & Paddy, Etc. No Regular Return Of Income U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant For Ay 2017-18. However, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Alappuzha (Hereinafter Called "The Ao"), Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) Of Rs.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nuju Basheer

State Institute of Chidrens Literature, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 539/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 State Institue Of Childrens Literature .......... Appellant Sanskrit College Campus, Palayalam Thiruvananthapuram 695034 [Pan: Aajts9037Q] Vs. Ito, Ward - 1(3), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Society Setup By The Government Of Kerala Formed With The Objective Of Promotion Of Education & Literature, Promote Reading Habits & Promote Affinity Towards Culture Among Children. No Return Of Income Was Filed By The Appellant Society For Ay 2019-20. Based On The Information Available In The It Portal That Interest Of Rs. 21,37,898/- Was Received By The Appellant, The Ito, Ward-1(3)

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2019-20 State Institue

Hussain Theparambil Faisal, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 520/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hussain Theparambil Faizal .......... Appellant Theparambil, Chalingadu, Kaipamangalam Thrissur 680681 [Pan: Acvpf5761G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad [Cit(A)] Dated 23.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual. No Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant For Ay 2017-18. However, Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetisation Period, The Ito, Ward 2(1), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Issued A Notice U/S. 142(1) Of The Act Calling Upon The Appellant To 2 Hussain Theparambil Faizal File Return Of Income. The Appellant Neither Complied With The Notice U/S. 142(1) Nor The Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act. In The Circumstances, The Ao Proceeded With Making Best Judgement Assessment By Making Addition Of The Cash Deposits Made During The Demonetisation Period As Unexplained Money Of The Appellant Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019 Passed U/S. 144 Of The Act.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hussain Theparambil

Ajikumar Babudharan Nair, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 509/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ajikumar Babudharan Nair .......... Appellant 1, Abhaya Mandiram, Velloor, Sasthavattom, Thiruvananthapuram. [Pan: Awapb 3129 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Nfac, Delhi Appellant By: Shri Sabu C.S., Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C.S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JM Assessment

Upendra Kumar Soni, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Corcle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 827/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Upendra Kumar Soni, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle-Kota, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 826/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sh. Kapil Taneja, Jaipur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh