“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)

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 112/RPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 111/RPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Haresh J. Rathod, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 115/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Haresh J Rathod Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम Shop No. 7 Hairline Unisex No.2(1)(2), Rajkot, T-Office, Vs. Salon, Amin Marg, Gujarat New Aayakar Bhawan, Housing Board, Rajkot-360 Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Abxpr 2350 L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr- DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

reason that assessee has deposited cash in the bank account during the demonetization period starting from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. The notice under section 142(1) of the Act, was first issued by the assessing officer, on 19.12.2017, seeking the assessee to file the return of income for assessment year ... assessing officer issued further notices under section 142(1) of the Act, on 10.04.2019 and 24.05.2019. The said notices were issued & served electronically on the assessee. 4. In response to above notices, u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has filed the reply before the assessing officer electronically

Sunbond Ceramic Private Limited, Morbi vs. JCIT, Morbi Range, Morbi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above

ITA 739/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.739/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav,Ld. Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44ASection 68

ITA No.739/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 14-15 Sunbond Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Axwell Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 491/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

ITA No.491/Rjt/2024 (A.Y.17-18) Axwell Granito Pvt. Ltd. आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT, Kozhikode vs. K K Leisures and Tourism International P Ltd, Peravoor

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Respondent: Smt.Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153(1)Section 69C

this case the return of income was filed for the first time on 27th July, 2014 after the issuance of notice under section 142(1). 8. It is settled position of law that for the assessments of other persons governed by the provisions of section 153C, the Provisions of sec.153A

Narendrasinh Pravinsinh Jadeja, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 282ASection 44ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2011-12 Narendrasinh

Torrent Energy Limited (Now Merged With Torrent Power Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 254Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

judicial precedent in case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (Supra). 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid remand, the Assessing Officer (NFAC) issued notice under section 142(1) dated 03.08.2021 and called upon the assessee to furnish the original return, computation, lease agreement, comparative chart with earlier years, and justification

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was duly issued. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued from time to time, to which the assessee filed replies and furnished necessary information. During the course

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

Ravindra Balasaheb Raykar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 284/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Yash Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke, Ahilyanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahilyanagar, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2223/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke Ito, Ward – 1, At Post Hanga, Tal. Parner, Ahilyanagar Vs. Dist. Ahilyanagar – 414001 Pan: Adepl9114B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prasad S Bhandari Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 08-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

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

Deepak Kapurchand Shaha Kothari, Raigad vs. ITO Ward-1 Panvel, Panvel East

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

ITA 1084/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Mr. Mohammed Shahab KhanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Upashan Debnath, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward 41(3), Nadia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 378/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.378/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upashan Debnath……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant Vill. Nagarukhra, P.S.Haringhata, Haringhata, Nadia, West Bengal – 741257. [Pan: Axfpd1830M] Vs. Ito, Ward-41(3), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Roychowdhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 266 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 11.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,59,440/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Selected For

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

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

Dulal Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 28, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 369/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.369/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dulal Bhattacharjee…..………………………………………...….……….Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aedpb8602E] Vs. Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A), Bhopal [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 26.09.2015 For The Assessment Year 2015- 16 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,84,310/-. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Relating To The Issue Of Income/Capital Gains On Sale Of Land Or Building, Sale Of Property Mismatch, Sundry Creditors & Sales Turnover Mismatch. Thereafter, Statutory Notices U/S 142(1) & 143(2) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee & The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Duly Complied To The Notices. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Found That The

Section 142(1)Section 43C

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

Aristro Fincorp Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 364/KOL/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.364/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aristro Fincorp Pvt. Ltd………………………………………...….……….Appellant 21, Parsee Church Street, Opp. 18 Ezra Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaecs0680H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2014 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,51,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act As The Information Received From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai Under Project Falcon Regarding Coordinated & Premediated Trading On The Bombay Stock Exchange By Engaging In Reversal Trades In Illiquid Stock Options Resulting In Non-Genuine Business Loss/Gains To The Beneficiary Assessees & That The Present Assessee Is A Party To Such Manipulation. From The Data Made Available Under Project Falcon On The

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

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

Ram Kaur Singh, Kolkata vs. Ward 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.359/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kaur Singh……..………………………………………...….……….Appellant 8, Mansarala Lane, Khiderpore, Kolkata – 700023. [Pan: Alhps2735G] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Navans Shah, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 264 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 11.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,78,230/-. Subsequently, The Case Of

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

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

Link Tracom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.345/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Link Tracom Pvt. Ltd...………………………………………...….……….Appellant 3 Block B Room No.5, C R Avenue 1St Floor, Kolkata- 700072. [Pan: Aabcl5404H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajeev Mukherjee, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Filed Its Return Of Income On 20.12.2017 Electronically For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,66,139/-. The Return Was Duly Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 Of The Act With Reasons That The Assessee Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs.5,00,000/- During The Demonetization Period Commencing From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016. In Compliance To The Same, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,66,140/-. Thereafter, Statutory Notices U/S 142(1) & 143(2) Of The Act Were Issued To The Assessee & The Assessee Complied To The

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

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