← 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)

Nitin Chaturbhug Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2569/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

entire reopening assessment proceedings, the assessee remained silent with no compliance to the queries raised by the ld. AO vide notices under section 142(1) of the Act. In conclusion the assessment was completed under the provisions of section 144 of the Act by making a disallowance of Rs. 1 ... reopening of assessment was not validly served to the assessee. It is further claimed by the assessee that even the notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act are not served to the assessee. 5. To the aforesaid contention raised by the assessee before

Nitin Chaturbhug Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2568/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

entire reopening assessment proceedings, the assessee remained silent with no compliance to the queries raised by the ld. AO vide notices under section 142(1) of the Act. In conclusion the assessment was completed under the provisions of section 144 of the Act by making a disallowance of Rs. 1 ... reopening of assessment was not validly served to the assessee. It is further claimed by the assessee that even the notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act are not served to the assessee. 5. To the aforesaid contention raised by the assessee before

Shanti Devi, Sambhal vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Sambhal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6468/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsmt. Shanti Devi, Income Tax Officer, W/O Shri Bablu, Ward-1(5), R/O Vill. Dariyapur Rajdev, Vs. Sambhal- 244242, P. O. Chakauni, Uttar Pradesh. Sambhal- 244242, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Hvapd2318L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Akhilesh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short], In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10397076 Dated 30.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) For Asst. Year 2019-20. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. On The Other Hand, The Ld. Sr. Dr Supports The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) & Submits That Assessee Has Not Made Compliance To The Statutory Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act Before The Ao, Therefore, He Is Liable To Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act. He Thus Prayed For The Confirmation Of The Penalty Levied U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act. Shanti Devi Vs. Ito

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Park View Automotives Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 19(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5711/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13 Park View Automotives P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, S-606, School Block, Ward 19(3), Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecp3499H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca & Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

DCIT, Circle 52(1), New Delhi vs. Bhupinder Singh Bhalla, New Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2964/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Respondent: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Adv. (Virtual) S/Shri
Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54B

Large long term capital gain”. 3. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 22.06.2016 was served on assessee. Subsequently, notices under Section 142(1) dated 10.07.2018 and 06.09.2018 were served on assessee. In response to notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, Learned Authorised

Shantadurga Multi Purpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -M 2, Belagavi

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

ITA 205/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.205/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Shantadurgamultipurpose Vs I T O, Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, National E Assessment . Shop.No.13/14,Mangaldeep Centre, Apartments, Opp:Herwadkar, Delhi. Belgaum-590006, Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aahas7562F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(a)

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

Shree Keshav Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Junagadh vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Cir 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 794/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

PCIT and other material brought on record. We note that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 16.01.2020, which is placed at paper book page no.15, wherein the Assessing Officer has especially asked the assessee, to furnish eligibility criteria ... furnish the documentary evidence in support of its claim of deduction under Chapter VI-A. In response to the said notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has submitted its reply, dated 01.12.2020 (vide paper book page nos. 17 to 21),before the Assessing Officer, the relevant

Shree Keshav Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Junagadh vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Cir - 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 793/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

PCIT and other material brought on record. We note that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 16.01.2020, which is placed at paper book page no.15, wherein the Assessing Officer has especially asked the assessee, to furnish eligibility criteria ... furnish the documentary evidence in support of its claim of deduction under Chapter VI-A. In response to the said notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has submitted its reply, dated 01.12.2020 (vide paper book page nos. 17 to 21),before the Assessing Officer, the relevant

Satyaprem Rajabhau Dhole, Beed vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(ix)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2

Assessing officer : 3 ITA No.368/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 "Assessee has failed to comply with the terms of notice(s) issued under section 142(1). It was proposed to assess income under section 144 on the basis of material available on record. The assessee was given an opportunity to show cause

SHI vs. Hakti Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Punevs.Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2816/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri A.V. IyerFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD

Chaitanya Annaso Chavan, Peth Sangli vs. Assessing Offier, Sangli Ward

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

ITA 1136/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1136/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: CA Supriya PowarFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44

furnished her return of income for the year under consideration the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 142(1) of the IT act and show-cause notices were also issued to the assessee. The assessee did not comply with any of the above notices therefore

Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2578/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2577 & 2578/Kol/2025 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2021-22) Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited)……….……….……Appellant Octavius Centre, 1St Floor, 15B, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabch9212M] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata….……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 08.09.25 & 28.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Assessee & Facts Are Similar, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant A.Y Declaring Nil Income. A Search & Seizure

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

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

Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2577/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2577 & 2578/Kol/2025 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2021-22) Happy Suppliers Pvt. Ltd (Merged With Rishi Securities & Finance Private Limited)……….……….……Appellant Octavius Centre, 1St Floor, 15B, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabch9212M] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata….……………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandip Sarkar, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 08.09.25 & 28.08.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Assessee & Facts Are Similar, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant A.Y Declaring Nil Income. A Search & Seizure

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

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

Ubaiyathulla Maricar Syed Haji Ali Maricar, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nagapattinam

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

ITA 3502/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3502/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ubaiyathulla Maricar Syed The Income Tax Officer, Haji Ali Maricar, Vs. Ward-1, No.36, South Street Nagore, Nagapattinam. Nagapattinam – 611 002. Pan: Fmrps 1648G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.Lavanya, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms.Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. SBR Kumar Laghimsetti
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा

Arjun Keshava Murthy Perikal, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 810/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri H Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 142(1)

that firm. The learned AR further submitted that the assessment proceedings were conducted in a very short span of time. The notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 29-10-2018 was replied to on 30-11-2018 and the proceedings were concluded ... further notice under section 142(1) of the Act seeking clarification on foreign travel expenses was issued on 06-12-2018 and was duly replied to on 12-12-2018, which was enclosed as Annexure-8. The brochure of the programme organised by J. Sagar & Associates was also uploaded

Babulal Rameshwari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2141/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

assessee has made substantial cash deposit during the demonetisation period i.e. between 9th November 2016 to 31st December 2016. Accordingly notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued requiring the assessee to file the return but no response was received. 6. Thereafter, notice under section

Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2087/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA Nos.2087 & 2088/Bang/2024 Hagamlaldak Gouthamchand, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore vs. Hagamilaldak Gouthamchand, Mysore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2088/BANG/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA Nos.2087 & 2088/Bang/2024 Hagamlaldak Gouthamchand, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore vs. Hagamilaldak Gouthamchand, Mysore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2087/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA Nos.2087 & 2088/Bang/2024 Hagamlaldak Gouthamchand, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Mkf International, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7726/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmkf International Dcit Circle 17(1), 1903/1905, Aarus Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Wallace Fortuna, Shivdas Vs. Bkc, Mumbai – Chapsi Marg, Opp-Fazlani 400 051 School, Chinchbunder Ho, Mumbai-400 009 Pan/Gir No. Abhfm5244N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah A/W Ms. Mitali Parekh, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 68

Cinema building. During the year, the assessee introduced capital aggregating to Rs. 19,06,08,525/-. 3. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) calling for Computation of income, Audit report, Bank statements, Partnership deed, Confirmation of capital introduced with supporting documents, Fund flow statement and Source