← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur vs. M/S. Habib Tannery Private Limited, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 564/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S Habib Tannery Pvt. Ltd. Tax-6 15-B, 150 Ft. Road Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aach4129E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri H. S. Usmani, Cit (Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. S. Usmani, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Kushal Vinodkumar Bhatt Legal Heir of Late Shri Vinodkumar Ramanlal Bhatt, Anand vs. The ACIT (OSD), Ward-5, Anand

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

ITA 752/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159(2)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

Prafulla Shantilal Kothari, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 922/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.922/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prafulla Shantilal Kothari, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Flat No.1, Akshay Plaza, Ramnagar, Wadgaonsheri, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aahhp4593E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora, Shri Saukhya Lakade & Miss Riya Oswal Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per R. K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.02.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Huf & Is Carrying On Business Of Online Trading In Lottery Tickets Under The Name & Style ‘J.K. Lottery’. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.51,25,350/-. The Case

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

assessment proceedings, AO observed that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs 2,73,627/- as advertisement expenditures. Vide notice under section 142(1) dated 28/01/2019, the 5 assessee was specifically requested to provide the various details with regard to the advertisement expenditures. However, the assessee failed to provide ... assessee. 6.1.3 Further, AO observed that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs 4,39,595/- as vehicles expenditure. Notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee, requesting the assessee to provide the documentary proof for these expenses. In reply to the notice issued, the assessee furnished

Venkatesh Kammari, Chevella vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

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

ITA 465/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K P BinduFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Satyanarayan Somani (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

ITA 389/HYD/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar Jhawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.A.R
Section 10(38)Section 144Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश

F5 Networks Innovation Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 912/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राि, उपाध् यक्ष एिं श्री मिुसूदन सािडिया

ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Citizen Umbrella Manufacturers Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed as infructuous

ITA 306/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 69A

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

Dynamic Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 740/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 129Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

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

Delta Dealers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(3), Kolkata

ITA 650/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.650/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Delta Dealers Pvt. Ltd…………………………………………...….……….Appellant Baltikuri, Kalitala, P.O. Dasnagar, Howrah-711113. [Pan: Aaccd9633P] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(3), Kolkata.………….......................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A & Taraknath Jaiswal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Under The Name Of Orange Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Being Its Pan No.Aabco0792P. The Return Of The Assessee Initially Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act & The Assessee Complied To The Notices & Assessment Order Was Framed By Determining Total Income Of Rs.45,500/-. Immediately, Thereafter The Said Assessment Order Was Set Aside By The Ld. Pcit, Kolkata-2 By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act. In Consequence To That, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Directing The Assessee To Submit Detailed Information Regarding The Shareholders Along With Supported Evidences In Respect Of Share Capital & Share

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Uco Bank, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2677/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us It Is Clear That While The Date Of Order Is 28.03.2024, The Appeal Has Been Filed Only On 30.12.2024. For The Sake Of Reference, An Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Deserves To Be Extracted As Under:

Section 142(1)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Auxilium Convent School, Hooghly vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2148/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 274BSection 68

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

K.K.Chinnaputhur Paccs, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 829/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.828 & 829/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 K.K. Chinnaputhur Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Society, 52/37A, Ward 2(4), Reddipalayam, Chinnapudhur Post, Tiruppur. Dharapuram, Tiruppur 638 656. [Pan:Aabak3665K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 29.08.2024 & 18.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 20015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

invalid and thereby, notice under section 143(2) of the Act could not be generated. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act and in response to the notice, the assessee filed copy of computation of income, P & L account, balance sheet, etc. From

K.K. Chinnaputhur Paccs, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 828/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.828 & 829/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 K.K. Chinnaputhur Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Society, 52/37A, Ward 2(4), Reddipalayam, Chinnapudhur Post, Tiruppur. Dharapuram, Tiruppur 638 656. [Pan:Aabak3665K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 29.08.2024 & 18.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 20015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

invalid and thereby, notice under section 143(2) of the Act could not be generated. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act and in response to the notice, the assessee filed copy of computation of income, P & L account, balance sheet, etc. From

Antony Sunil, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Chennai

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

ITA 815/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.815/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Antony Sunil, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 59, 11Th Trust Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(7), Mandavelipakkam, Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Bxbps7987P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 415 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)Section 69

complete scrutiny under CASS. Note under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 27.09.2018 and notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 23.01.2019 & 23.10.2019 were issued on the assessee calling for details. In response to the notices, the assessee furnished the details

Praveena, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncq-8(5), Chennai

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

ITA 804/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.804/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Praveena, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 33/5, Kulakarai 2Nd Street, Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056. Chennai. [Pan:Cyqpp5147R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunatha, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under 2

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunatha, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Axis Bank, Poonamallee Branch, Chennai and did not file return of income for AY 2017-18. Thus, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 08.01.2018 requiring the assessee to file return of income, but, however, the assessee did not comply with the same. From

Perumal Pillai Muthiah Pillai Sankaranarayanan, Srivilliputtur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Virudhunagar, Income Tax Office

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

ITA 478/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.478/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Perumal Pillai Muthiah Pillai Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Sankaranarayanan, No. 1A, Income Tax, Krishnankoil, Vpm Nagar, Circle – 1, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. Tamil Nadu 626 190. [Pan:Avkps6163K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 628 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

complete scrutiny under CASS. Note under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 30.08.2018 and notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 03.12.2019 & 16.12.2019 were served on the assessee. In response to the notices, the assessee furnished the details as called

Mohammed Fasiulla Sharif, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 288/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Phani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

R C Advisors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Geetha Rani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14A

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore

ITA 2348/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250

ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024& CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore “A”BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM