← 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)

Income Tax Officer, Thane vs. Aura Navkar Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 6681/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ito, Ward-4(1), Thane Aura Navkar Developers Room No.3, A-Wing, Gala No. 20, The Sidhupura 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. Ind. Est. Ltd. Gaiwadi, Wagle Industrial Estate, S.V.Road, Goregaon West, Thane(W),Mumbai-400604 Mumbai- 400062 Pan No. Aazfa 9532 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(4)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 5714/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

indulged in the practice of taking on-money on sale of land/flats, which were not recorded in the books of accounts, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. In the absence of any response from the assessee, the AO, vide

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5710/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

indulged in the practice of taking on-money on sale of land/flats, which were not recorded in the books of accounts, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. In the absence of any response from the assessee, the AO, vide

DCIT-C-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Habitats India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5709/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

indulged in the practice of taking on-money on sale of land/flats, which were not recorded in the books of accounts, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. In the absence of any response from the assessee, the AO, vide

Anthayya Education Foundation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption 1-(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5001/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Margav Shukla &For Respondent: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 142(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Juniper Networks India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2042/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ms. Forum GudhkaFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Vinay Kumar, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept., Delhi

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

ITA 4452/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 127Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vinay Kumar, vs. Assessment

Prem Singh, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 4043/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanprem Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (1), H.No.225, Sector 45, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 010 (Haryana). (Pan : Aezps5030F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupinderjit, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date Of Order : 09.05.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 03.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Individual Transaction Statement Available On The Action Management System Of The Itd That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Aggregating To Rs.19,87,000/- In His Bank Account Maintained With Icici Bank Ltd. Bearing Account No.004601009337. Accordingly, Notices Were Issued To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). In Response, Assessee Submitted That The Return Filed On 30.07.2011 May Be Treated As Return

For Appellant: Shri Bhupinderjit, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Prem Singh, vs. ITO

Yokohama India Private Limited, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3943/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Shyam, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(8), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1747/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shyam Vs. Ito C-55, Yadav Nagar, Block C, Ward-36(8) Delhi Delhi Pan: Awjps7120C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/05/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, (‘Nfac’ For Short) Dated

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

1 Shyam Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Yokohama India Private Limited, Jhajjar vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 761/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Yokohama India Private Limited, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle-27(2), New De

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 856/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Nxp India P.Ltd(Formerly Known As Freescale Semiconductor India Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi vs. JCIT Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5763/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 92Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Krishna Plantations Pvt. Ltd, Margao vs. Assessment Unit - Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 199/PAN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.199/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21) Krishna Plantations Pvt Ltd, Vs National Faceless 15/1452,Nanuhouse, Varde Assessment Centre, . Valaulikar Road, 2 Floor, F-Ramp, Margoa-403601, Jawaharlal Nehru Goa. Stadium, New Delhi-110003 Pan/Gir No. Aaack6885G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Smt.Bhavya Goyal.Ar Revenue By Shri.Ravindra Hattalli Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale ,Jm: The Assesse Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Delhi Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Has Not Pressed The Ground Of Appealno.1 & Made Endorsement; Accordingly This Ground Of Appeal Is Treated As Withdrawn & Is Dismissed.

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

Kavita Budhia, Near Maa Sharda Hospital Ring Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 171/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 171/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

Kutch District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Anjar - Kutch vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

ITA 113/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.113& 114/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Kutch Dist. Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. C/O Apmc Premises, Versamedinaka, Near Railway Crossing, Anjar, Kukch-370 110 Vs. Income Tax Department, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaak 9845 N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Akshay Modi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By :Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A.L. Saini, A.Μ: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ays) 2018-19 & Ay 2020-21, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac'), Both Dated 09.01.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act'), Which In Turn Arose, Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, On 05.03.2021 & 25.9.2022, Respectively. 2. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, We Have Clubbed These Appeals & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3.

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Modi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 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

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Rajkot vs. Symbosa Granito Private Limited, Wankaner

ITA 806/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.806/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Symbosa Granite Pvt. Limited, Tax, Circle - 1(1), Rajkot Room No. 502,Aaykar Bhavan, Survey No. 125P1/P2,126,131P1/P2/P3, Race Course Road, Village- Matel, Rajkot - 300001 Wankaner- 363621(Gujarat) (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungliya, Ld. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: Captiond Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Dated 13.08.2024,Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Vide Order Dated 31.03.2022.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungliya, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 269/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Prop. Khodiyar Silver Manufacture Income Tax – 1, Rajkot Champak Nagar Chs Ltd., Opp. Pani Aayakar Bhavan, Race Na Ghoda, Pedak Road, Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360003 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adnpk3148B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

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

Lcc Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bhuj vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 259/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL

Abroad Vitrified Pvt Ltd, Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 144/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.144/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,राजकोट"यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI