← 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)

Pramod Salvi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8667/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailpramod Salvi 153, Poornanand Chs, Cr Dungarshi Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai - 400006. ............... Appellant Pan: Aajps3189B V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai- 400020

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

income of Rs. 6,440/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. On the basis of the Statement of Financial Transaction details available with the Department

Akshay Pinto, Chembur vs. Income Tax Officer 27(1)(1) Mumbai, Vashi

In the result Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8261/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18 Akshay Pinto, Clara Sadan, Income Tax Officer 16Th Road, Chembur, Mumbai, 27(1)(1), 4Th Floor, Maharashtra - 400071. Vs. Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aoopp 2080 H Present For: Assessee By : Shri. Arvind Pinto & Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Shri. Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per :Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2025 Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In This Case, During The Assessment Proceedingsinitiated On The Basis Of Scrutiny, Various Notices Dated 21.09.2018, 17.06.2019 & 22.06.2019 Were Issued To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer. Somehow, The Assessee Failed To Comply With The Notices Issued & Therefore The Assessing Officer Ultimately Passed The Assessment Order Dated 29.06.2019 U/S 144 Of The Act, Making Addition Of Rs.14,81,000/- U/S. 69A R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Arvind Pinto & Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR.)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI JAGADISH

Mukul Rohatgi, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate
Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

query in regard to this property and PCIT has specifically noted this fact in his revision order Paragraph 6.5 that notice under Section 142(1) dated 5th September, 2022 was issued asking query about property at 205, Jor Bagh, New Delhi (wrongly mentioned as Noida). Learned Counsel for the assessee ... where ALV was questioned by the PCIT, the assessee has produced relevant material and offered explanations in pursuance to the notices issued under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act and, after considering the materials and explanations, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order and came

Multi Mantech International Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3480/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pallav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Fabrica Da Igre Ja De Navelim, Navelim vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward - 1, Panaji

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

ITA 192/PAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.192/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Fabrica Da Igreja De Navelim, Vs I T O, Our Lady Of Rosary Church, National E Assessment . Navelim, Salcete, Centre, South Goa-403707. Delhi. Goa. Pan.No.Aaatf0452H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 11Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Shree Mahila Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Belagavi vs. ITO Ward 1 Belagavi, Belagavi

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

ITA 116/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.116/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Shree Mahila Credit Souhard Vs Ito-Ward-2, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Shop.No.3, Maruti Complex, Civil Hospital Road 2 Nd Railway Gate, Tilakwadi, Belagavi-590001. Belgaum-500006, Karnataka. Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aabas9244A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Partially Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/Sec80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act Made By The Assessing Officer & Without Prejudice Alternate Relief U/Sec80P(2)(D) Of The Act & Sustaining Denial Of Deduction Of Interest On Income Tax Refund Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act.

Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati, Anjar vs. ITO Exemption Ward-1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 789/Rjt/2025 धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), /Vs. C/O Rajesh K Soni, Shashtri Road, Ward- 1, Rajkot, Anjar, Kutch-360 001(Gujarat) It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan,Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarts 1920 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 274

under section 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2021, after recording reason and obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority. Notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 24.05.2021, 18.02.2022, 23.02.2022. After issue of show cause notice, the assessee filed its return of income

Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, Bhuj vs. ITO Ward 4, Gandhidham (Bhuj)

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

ITA 377/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

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

Badrinath Sales Private Limited, Adityapur, West Singhbhum vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle 1 Jsr, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/RAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

passing order under section 144 of the Act after considering the reply filed by the assessee in response to notice issued under section 142(1) by the assessing officer which is not in accordance with the accepted and well established norms of assessment and therefore, the order under section

M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT Range-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

given several opportunities to produce the books of accounts alongwith cash book, bills and vouchers and other supporting documents through notices under section 142(1) of the Act and order-sheet entries made on different dates, but the assessee had always sought adjournment and did not produce the books

Sarfarazkhan Sarvarkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2016/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69A

income of Rs.4,85,950/- which was e-verified on 14.12.2019. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act asking for details from the assessee regarding cash deposits, bank Sarfarazkhan Sarvarkhan Pathan vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3– statements

Jatinkumar Patel, Chhatral Kalol vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Mehsana

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1907/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

through concerns namely M/s Rut Traders and M/s Avdhoot Jatinkumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2014-15 - 3– Traders, but despite repeated notices under section 142(1) of the Act calling for books of account, ledgers, vouchers, mandi licence, transport bills and other documentary evidence, he failed to furnish any supporting ... entire bank credits of Rs.123.12 crores. Pursuant to this direction, the case was again taken up in faceless proceedings and several notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued by the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee again confined himself only to raising objections to jurisdiction

Nirman, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1509/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnirman, Vs. 35, Vasantkunj Society, New Dcit, Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan :Aabfn 7155 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Kankariya Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahilyanagar

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

ITA 1932/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

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

Mithlesh Amarnath Maurya, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai, Vashi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7731/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmithlesh Amarnath Ito Ward-28(2)(1), Maurya It Office, Vasi Flat No.302, Plot No. 17 & Vs. Railway Station 18, Hari Darshan Chs, Building, Navi Sector-9, Ulve, Mumbai-400 703 Maharashtra-410 206, Navi Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Asxpm2717M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Prajakta Arote, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

section 148 was issued. Since the assessee did not file return in response to notice and allegedly did not comply with notices under section 142(1), the assessment was completed under section 144.The Assessing Officer held that: - The entire consideration of Rs. 53,87,000/- represented unexplained investment. - The alleged

Dattatray Vithoba Sawant, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-42(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6081/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10(14)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 3Section 80CSection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 6081/Mum/2025 Assessment Year

Dilip Bhanwerlal Dangi (HUF), Palghar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6008/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 6008/Mum/2025 Assessment Year

Santush Pandurang Mane, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4528/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhatFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 80C

Rs.5,46,900. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, from the perusal of the return of income filed

Kishore Sewani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3006/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkishore Sewani 1St Floor 19, Krishna Niwas, 2Nd Fanas Wadi Dadi Seth Aigari Lane, Mumbai - 400002. ............... Appellant Pan: Abbps4546F V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 23(2)(6), ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

statutory notices under section 143(2) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee on 24/09/2018. Thereafter, statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act 3 were also issued and duly served on the assessee. However, the assessee failed to comply with the same

Pentokey Organy Organ (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2651/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailpentokey Organy (India) Ltd. 45/47, Somaiya Bhavan, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai. ............... Appellant Pan: Aaacp6875D V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 1(2)(1), ……………… Respondent Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. Shri Om Kandalkar Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL