← 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)

ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati vs. Arman Ali, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 79/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: GAUHATI BENCH: GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, HON

Subhash Murarka, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 176/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subhash Murarka C-1/85/186-R7, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aeqpm4578P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Tenali

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 80C

later transferred to the Faceless Assessment Unit and thereafter notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 19.06.2023 and notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 21.06.2023 was issued and served on the assessee calling for details. Since the assessee did not comply with the notice, reminder

Sanjukta Varanasi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 225/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.225/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(3) Sanjukta Varanasi D.No. 49-46-4/30 Income Tax Office Ramakrishna Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhavan Near Jaggarao Bridge Mvp Double Road Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam – 530017 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afspv9008E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

made cash deposits into the bank account but has not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. Hence, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 12.03.2018 requiring the assessee to file the return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. Further a letter

Chandra Bosu Babu Ramesh Yangala, Gudivada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.214/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Chandra Bosu Babu Ramesh Yangala Asst. City Planner Gudiwada, Andhra Pradesh Gudivada Municipality Gudivada – 521301 Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Acspy1662Q] (अपीलधर्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri K. Siva Rama Kumar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 144Section 250

Face, HDFC Bank, Rajahmundry and Axis Bank, Koramangala amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- during the demonetization period. Notice dated 13.03.2018 under section 142(1)(i) of the Act was issued to the assessee calling for return of income. Since the assessee did not file any return of income till ... also obtained information from the banks as per the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act. In response to the notice under section 142(1)(i) of the Act, assessee filed explanation for the sources of cash deposits made during the demonetization period by stating that

Netplast Pvt.Ltd., Kanpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(3)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 320/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

I.T.A. No.320/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Bindu Kumar, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(1), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

that the assessee did not make any compliance to the said notice. Therefore, the ld. AO records that he issued another notice under section 142(1) asking the assessee as to why the cash deposits during the year may not be treated as unexplained and added to his total income

Shri Ram Multicom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ram Multicom Private Tax, Central Circle 3(4) Limited Aaykar Bhavan, 110, Ideal Centre, Unit No.3, 3 Rd Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. Floor, 9 A.J.C. Bose Road Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs5277N Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Nirav Sheth, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144

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

Mallur Kaligounder Muthamil, Salem vs. ACIT Circle 1, Hosur

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

ITA 713/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:713/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mallur Kaligounder Muthamil, The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No.106, Trichy Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Mallur Post, Circle -1, Hosur. Salem – 636 203. [Pan:Cowpm-3525-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Govindasamy Bharathiraja, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.258/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Mr. Govindasamy Bharathiraja, The Ito, Old 4, New 6, Balaji Colony, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), 3Rd Cross Street, Velachery, Chennai. Chennai-600 042. [Pan: Albpb 2971 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 144Section 69Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Income-Tax Officer - 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acute Retail Infra Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4570/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailito – 12(1)(1), Room No.129, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabca3835H V/S Acute Retail Infra Private Limited, Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, ……………… Respondent Jogeshwary Vikroli Link Road, Jogeshwary, Mumbai - 400060 Maharashtra Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Ayeshabee Babu Khan, Mankhured vs. ITO 27 1 1 Mumbai, Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2887/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailayeshabee Babu Khan, 1, Mankhured Station Road, T.F. Donar S.O., Mumbai – 400088 ............... Appellant Pan : Cgopk4227M V/S Ito – 27(1)(1), Vashi Railway Station, ……………… Respondent 3X7X Gqp 3Rd & 4Th Floor, 6Th Tower Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 251

assessee and was also required to examine the source of investment for purchasing the immovable 3 property. Subsequently, statutory notices under section 142(1) were also issued to the assessee. Despite the grant of multiple opportunities, the assessee neither filed any return in response to the notice issued under section ... filed any response to the statutory notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded to make the assessment under section 144 of the Act on the basis of the material and information available on record. Vide order dated 26.02.2024 passed under section

Ashish Sindwani, Nilokheri, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1607/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1607/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Ashish Sindwani, Nilokheri, C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates, 179, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana 133001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Dtnps-9951-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana 132001 Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goyal, Chartered Accountant Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/07/2025 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 09.02.2024, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Two Counts:- “(I) Confirming Addition Of Rs.24,77,940/- U/S. 69A Of The Act, On Account Of Cash Deposits During The Period Of Demonization; &

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 44Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “ए”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 69C

prevailing position of law applicable on such facts, I find that the appellant has failed to comply with the notice(s) issued under section 142(1) of the Act, and that the appellant has not been able to establish that there was any reasonable cause for such failure, within ... appeal proceedings. There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant has failed to comply with the statutory notice(s) issued under section 142(1) in the course of assessment proceedings, on various dates. During the penalty proceedings, notices were issued asking the appellant to show cause

Pragnesh Kantarya, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Surendranagar, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 485/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 485/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pragnesh Kantariya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd –1, (Prop. Of Vision Industies) Surendranagar, Income Tax Office, B2-1101, Shilpan Onyx, Gangotri Park Opp. Mela Medan, Main Road, University Road, Surendranagar-363001 Rajkot – 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bbspk0467P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Savita Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Delhi

ITA 609/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

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

Pramod Kumar Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

This exercise by the AO under Section 143 (2) of the Act is qualitatively different from the issuance of a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, which as noted hereinbefore, is in a standard proforma. The proposal to reopen an assessment under Section

Pradip Chauhan, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblepradip Chauhan, The Deputy Commissioner Vs. 14, Antica Green Woods, Of Income Tax,, Ankodia Sevasi, Circl1(1)(1), Vadodara-391330. Vadodara. [Pan :Abepc2753 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rajeev Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Garg, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 40Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Disha Resources Ltd. (Formerly Known As Arihant Avenues and Credit Limited.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 535/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Disha Resources Ltd. (Formerly Known As Arihant Avenues and Credit Limited.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 534/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER