“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)

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Ambikapur, Surajpur vs. Income Tax Offficer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Ambikarpur

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

ITA 132/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Patel, Sr.-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH :: RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT

Arti Deepakkumar Pandit, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Dwarka

ITA 127/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 127/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Arti Deepakkumar Pandit Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 204,Shyam Dwarika Low Rise, Ito Ward – 1, Madhapar Chowkdi, Near Swami, Dwarka - 361335 Narayan Mandir, Rajkot - 360006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amnpp0638A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

limited scrutiny through CASS. The notice was issued u/s. 143(2) on 03.07.2017. Thereafter, a detailed questionnaire was issued through notice under Section 142(1) dated 20.07.2017. The assessee has deposited Rs 7632800 in Bank of India and Rs 13,18,075/- was deposited in Axis Bank. In view

Rajbansh Ram, Bhabua vs. ITO Ward- 3(5), Sasaram

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

ITA 351/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण पटना पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्चुअल कोटु] [Virtual

Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu, Vijayawada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 112Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 54FSection 69A

Rs.2,34,400/- on 21.02.2022 by claiming exemption for long term capital gains under section 54F of the Act. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates requiring the assessee to file the details Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.265/VIZ/2024 Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu called

Rajeev Kumar Sehgal, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ITO-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri-2

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajeev Kumar Sehgal V. The Income Tax Officer 3(4) Punjab Colony Lakhimpur Kheri - 2 Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Asbps5131M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

same income as declared in the original return of income, i.e. Rs.4,97,230/-. Thereafter, in response to the statutory notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued by the AO, the assessee filed a reply dated 12.03.2022, stating therein that the assessee deals in retail business of Tractors

Ashray Ventures Pvt. Ltd, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer Central Circle-1, Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ashray Ventures Pvt. Ltd. V. The Assessing Officer Gole Market Central Circle – 1 Mahanagar, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aakca3580E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 68

return of income was filed by the assessee in compliance to the notice under section 153A of the Act. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued to the assessee. However, neither anyone attended nor any submission was received by the Office ... response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The AO, from the material available on record, found that the paid up capital and unsecured loan of Rs.1 lakh each has been shown by the assessee in the return of income filed on 11.01.2013. The AO held that

Income Tax Officer Ward-5 Yamuna Nagar, Yamuna Nagar vs. Shivalik Filling Station, Khizrabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 960/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250Section 42Section 69A

substantial cash deposits. 4.1 It was submitted that despite issuance of notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2021, and subsequent statutory notices under section 142(1), no return of income was filed by the assessee in the name of the firm. The response received from the assessee merely stated that

Rama Rani, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 933/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 933/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ms. Rama Rani Dcit बनाम/ Vs. H. No 1058, Popular Enclave Circle 1(1), Sector 48-B, Chandigarh Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aerpr-2072-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ravinder Krishan (Advocate)– Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 14-03-2024 Proposing Revision Of Assessment As Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.147 Of The Act On 29-03-2022. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 98 Days In The Appeal, The Condonation Of Which Has Been Sought By Ld. Ar On The Strength Of Condonation Petition Which Is Accompanied By An Affidavit Of The Assessee. It Has Been Stated That The Assessee Was Not In India When

For Appellant: Sh. Ravinder Krishan (Advocate)– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54F

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

Bakeri Projects Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 954/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Bakeri Projects Pvt. Lt. The Dcit, Cir.(1)(1) 1St Floor, Sanskrut Vs. Ahmedabad. Old High Court Road Off: Ashram Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aagcb 1864 L (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, AR, and Shri Bharat Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

were conducted under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer issued multiple notices under section 142(1) seeking detailed explanations and documentary evidence regarding the computation of income, treatment of brought forward losses, claim of depreciation, and other aspects. In compliance ... submitted that the assessment proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice under section 143(2) dated 29.06.2021, followed by several notices under section 142(1), pursuant to which the assessee submitted detailed replies on 28.07.2021, 17.01.2022, 07.03.2022, 26.08.2022, and 18.09.2022, respectively. All such replies were duly acknowledged and considered

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanji Bhavan vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 651/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80I

donee trusts, in its reply dated 06.01.2022 and again on 07.02.2022 in response to the Assessing Officer’s notices issued under 8 section 142(1) of the Act. The donation was made to GMDC Gramin Vikas Trust and GMDC Gramya Vikas Trust, which were duly approved under section

Ratansinh Solanki, Mahesana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Patan, Patan, Gujarat

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

ITA 526/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Ratansinh Solanki Ito, Ward-1 Rajput Vas, At – Modhera Vs. Patan. Becharaji, Mehesana, Becharaji So Gujarat. Pan : Exyps 4701 K (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, AR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

condonation request was not accepted, as per remarks dated 24.02.2023. Thereafter, during the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued several statutory notices under section 142(1) dated 05.04.2023, 08.08.2023, and 27.09.2023, as well as follow-up notices including show cause notice dated 08.02.2024. However, the assessee remained non-compliant throughout ... records such as purchase register, sales register, stock register, milk delivery records, or milk society receipts were furnished, despite specific requisitions made under section 142(1). The Assessing Officer, based on independent verification of bank accounts under section 133(6), concluded that the assessee had total credits amounting to Rs.1

Ttec India Customer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ttec India Customer Solutions Pr.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Ttec Ahmedabad Vs. Income Tax-3 Opp: L.J.College Vejalpur Off: Sg Road, Makarba Ahmedabad. Fatewadi Bo, Fatewadi Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaccm 1005A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vishal Kabra, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

selected for complete scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) were issued on 29.06.2021, followed by multiple notices under section 142(1) dated 08.11.2021, 21.02.2022, and 20.07.2022. The assessee furnished its responses electronically through the ITBA portal, submitting detailed workings, explanations, and documentary evidence as called ... completed, pursuant to a detailed scrutiny proceeding initiated through notices issued under section 143(2) and several notices under section 142(1). In response to these notices, the assessee had duly furnished the financial statements including segmental P&L for the Philippines branch, tax return filed in the Philippines, reconciliation

Jhaveri Trading and Investment Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Cent. Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mcfills Enterprises Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 402/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mcfills Enterprises Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 401/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd., Nashik vs. ACIT, Central Cir-1, Nashik

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

ITA 941/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12 Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Central Circle – 1, Plot No.3/4, Poush Sector-A, Agra Nashik Vs. Road, Lekhanagar, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Aabch4310G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

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

Pinki Fresh Foods Limited, Chittoor vs. ITO., Ward-1, Chittoor

ITA 1151/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri K. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 112Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 2(14)

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2(2), Chennai vs. S K T Studios, Chennai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2658/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’सी’ न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार

Geethamma, Shivvamoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Shivamoga

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

ITA 270/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment year: 2017-18 Mrs

Virender Verma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2689/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153C

1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “E” NEWDELHI BEFORESHRISUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER