← 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)

Waseem Alam, West Champaran vs. ITO, National E Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 17/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.17/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Waseem Alam…...………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Bhawanipur Kursi Barawa, Sikta, West Champaran, Bihar-845307. [Pan: Alopa0369B] Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi…………..……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 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’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,68,550. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under The E- Assessment Scheme, With The Specific Issue Of Verification Of Large Deduction Claimed Under Section 57 Of The Act. Notice Under Section 143(2) & Subsequently Under Section 142(1) Was Issued To The Assessee. Although The Assessee Uploaded Certain Documents Electronically In Response, The Details Were Found To Be Incomplete. The

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

specific issue of verification of large deduction claimed under Section 57 of the Act. Notice under section 143(2) and subsequently under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee. Although the assessee uploaded certain documents electronically in response, the details were found to be incomplete. The I.T.A. No.17/Pat/2025 Waseem ... purpose of earning such income. It is also evident that the assessee had made partial compliance with the notices issued under Section 142(1) and has now pleaded for an opportunity to produce the relevant documents. In the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that

Arun Kumar Mandal, Araria vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Purnea

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

ITA 119/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 119/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arun Prasad Mondal,……………………………Appellant C/O. Shiv Narayan (Prop. Maa Dhaneshwari Khad Beej Bhandar), Bardha (Sikti), Araria-854333, Bihar [Pan:Bohpm1854A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-3(3), Purnea, Near Jail Chowk, Nh-31, Purnea-854301, Bihar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270A

issued and served upon the assessee for compliance on 12.10.2018. Since no compliance was made by the assessee, again notice under section 142(1) was issued and served upon the assesese for compliance on 30.08.2019. The assesee again failed to comply, Since the assessee never cared to make compliance

Rahulkumar Bharatbhai Surti, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 133/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rahulkumar Bharatbhai Surti, Vs. The Ito, 15-16, Shyam Residency, Ward – 2(3)(3), Kumbhariya Gam, Kumbhariya, Surat Surat - 395010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Exhps8576M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shaunak K. Zaveri, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

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

Lekhakosh Karmachari Sahakari Patpedhi Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Pr. CIT, Pune-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 263

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

Md Parwez Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 839/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

question then the proceedings should have been initiated against the appellant who is the holder of that account. After receiving the notice under section 142(1) of the Act the appellant has also indicated the same to the respondent but without taking into account any such reply the Respondent Assessing ... other address of the firm available where further enquiry could be conducted. But the respondent assessing officer had sent the notice under section 142(1) of the Act and also the assessment order in the address "51/1/1, Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata - 700043". Therefore, it is clear from these facts that

Kaushalya Suppliers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 618/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 618/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Kaushalya Suppliers Private Limited,.………Appellant Room No. 5, Vinayak Complex, 4Th Floor, 55/1A, Strand Road, Kolkata-700006 [Pan:Aadck5565C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 22, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

served on the assessee. In compliance to such notice, ld. A.R. of the assessee appeared and furnished details as called for under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The same were examined and placed on record. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed

Manaksia Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 470/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

opening words refers to a return being made under Section 139 of the Act or in response to a notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act. At the time relevant for the assessment that was undertaken by the Assessing Officer after a notice under Section ... assessment for AY 2000-01. However, the Assessee did not file a return and therefore a notice was issued to it under Section 142 (1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Assessee appeared before the AO and stated that the original return filed should be treated as a return filed

M/S. Vedika Credit Capital Ltd., Ranchi vs. ITO, Circle 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 377/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Brillant Vincom LLP (Successor of Brillant Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 282/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA श्री प्रदीप कुमार चौबे, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखा सटस्य के समक्ष [BeforeShri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 263Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी "द"प

Indrajit Ghosh, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 23(3), Chinsurah, Hooghly

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

ITA 214/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 214/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Indrajit Ghosh,……………………………..………Appellant 248, G.T. Road, P.O. Sheoraphuli, P.S. Serampore, Dist. Hooghly-712223, West Bengal [Pan:Adipg1201C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-23(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Suman Majumder, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 22, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148

response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee failed to file his return of income. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 26.07.2023 for getting further details and the assessee responded on 11.02.2023 with his reply along with documents. On perusal

R P Infra Projects, Delhi vs. ACIT, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 156/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.156/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 R P Infra Projects…...……………………..…………………....Appellant 907, New Delhi House, 27-Barakhamba Road, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001. [Pan: Alopa0369B] Vs. Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Joshi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 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’). 2. The Assessee Is A Joint Venture (Jv) Between S&P Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) Holding A 70% Share & Aarpee Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. (Jalpaiguri, West Bengal) Holding A 30% Share. The Jv Was Awarded A Contract For The Execution Of The Remaining Work Of Widening & Strengthening Of The Single-Lane Carriageway To A Double- Lane Carriageway From Km 28.00 To Km 53.76 On Nh-105, Under A Special Project Scheme In Madhubani, Bihar. The Total Project Value Was Rs.130,06,07,964/-, Awarded On 23Rd June 2016. The Assessee Filed Its

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

issued to the assessee, directing it to produce evidence in support of the contract and fees received. Further, a notice under Section 142(1) was issued, requiring the assessee to submit its accounts and supporting documents. The Assessing Officer viewed that an amount of Rs.150,00,000/- was not incurred

Evergreen Fincap Market Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 272/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 272/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Evergreen Fincap Market Private Limited,.…Appellant Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aabce2789A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-5(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 22, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

cash deposit also. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 14.07.2016 and after than notice under section 142(1) with questionnaire was issued and served on the assessee asking him to produce the submit certain details and documents to substantiate its return

Solo Hotels India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Circle 11(1).Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross

ITA 2540/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed As There Was Non-Compliance On Behalf Of The Assessee. Being Aggrieved By & Dissatisfied The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before Us.

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH”, KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. K K Group of Company Pvt. Ltd., Sikkim

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2247/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Kk Group Of Company Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Singtam Bazar, East Sikkim, 5Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Vs. Singtam Forest Block, Singtam, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal S.O. 737134, Sikkim (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck8867D Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 6(3), Kolkata

ITA 1789/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 40a

I.T.A. Nos.: 1788, 1930 & 1789/KOL/2024 AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Nagreeka Foils Ltd. orders u/s 143(3)/263

Ponraj, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward 8(5), Chennai

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

ITA 714/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 714/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ponraj, Income Tax Officer, No. 307, W Block, Vs. Non Corp, Ward 8(5), C Sector, 20Th Street, Chennai. Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 101. [Pan:Avlpp-6598-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Bangalore Venkatappa Ravikumar, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 800/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mallya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Bangalore Venkatappa Ravikumar, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 799/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Mallya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Vivek Kumar Mahendra Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 28(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2434/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Assessee Has Challenged The Addition Of Rs.29,21,000/- On Merits & It Had Been Stated That Ld. Ao Had Passed Exparte Order Because Notice Of Hearing Could Not 2 Vivek Kumar Mahendra Singh

Section 142(1)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J(SMC)’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT

Nilesh Purshottam Ghodasara, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle Int Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH