← 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)

Sayeed Ahmed Nalband, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 196/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA Mohammad AmmarFor Respondent: MS. Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

M/S. Philips Electronics Nederland B.V., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T.(International Taxation), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.134/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) M/S Philips Electronics Vs Acit(International Taxation), Nederland B.V. Circle-2(1), Kolkata C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bengal Intelligent Park, Building Omega, 13Th& 14Th Floor, Block- Ep & Gp, Sector-V, Salt Lake Electronic Complex, Kolkata- 700091 Pan No. :Aafcp4361F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Guru Bhashyam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2022, Passed By The Acit, Circle-2(1), It, Kolkata Giving Effect To The Direction Given By The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi(In Short The ‘Drp’), Dated 04.11.2022, Thereby Finalizing The Assessment Order In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Additional Ground Filed By The Assessee & Submitted That The Appeal Of The Assessee May Be Decided On The Following Additional Grounds Taken By The Assessee :-

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 156Section 90(2)

herein after referred to as I.T Act 1961/ the Act) was issued and served on the Assessee on 29/06/2021. Subsequently, notices under Section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 30/12/2021 and 19/03/2022 were served on the Assessee. In response to the above notices, the assessee from time

M/S.Thiru Kumaarh Hardwares, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 589/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.589/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Thiru Kumaarh Hardwares, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1A, Anjugambal Street, 100 Feet Road, Non Corporate Ward 19(6), Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Tatamani, Chennai. Chennai 600 013. [Pan:Aaeft8378E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.10.2023 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 424 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Along With Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination

For Appellant: Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

partnership firm deriving income from business of hardwares. The Assessing Officer found cash deposits in assessee’s bank account. Under scrutiny, notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was issued and also issued notice to the bank seeking explanation. The Assessing Officer issued

R1618 Varadharajapuram Pacs, Tiruchirappalli vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruchirappalli

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

ITA 588/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.588/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 R 1618 Varadharajapuram Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agri. Co-Op. Society, 6/69A, Ward 2, Thirunarayanapuram, Tiruchirapalli. Tiruchirapalli 621 203. [Pan:Aabar2403E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2023 after following due procedure under section 148A(d) of the Act followed by notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 10.07.2023. However, the assessee did not comply with the same. The Assessing Officer issued further notice under section 142(1

Marappa Gounder Balakrishnan, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

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

ITA 585/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.585/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Marappa Gounder Balakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Door No. 13A, 1 Paramasivampalayam, Ward 2(1), Vayakkadu Thottam, Somanur, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 663. [Pan:Arypb4707C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 242 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

income for AY 2013-14. Thus, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2021 followed by notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 27.07.2021. However, the assessee did not comply with the same. The Assessing Officer issued further notices under section 142(1

Gopalsamy Sathiyan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 582/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.582/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gopalsamy Sathiyan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 669/2, Kuttuputhur Main Road, Ward 2, Mohanur Oruvandur Post, Namakkal. Namakkal 637 015. [Pan:Dwbps4361A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

deposit during the year”. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 24.08.2018 and further notice under section 142(1)/re- posting letter/questionnaire dated 08.07.2019, 07.08.2019, 28.08.2019, 04.09.2019, 04.10.2019 & 08.11.2019 were issued to the assessee calling for various details. In response to the notices

Srinivasan Varatharaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 579/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.579/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srinivasan Varatharaj, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Kandan Street, Perambur S.O., Income Tax, Perambur, Chennai 600 011. Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Avjps1866L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sricharan, Ca & : Ms. Srinithi, Advocate For Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 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 27 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We

For Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 194ISection 69

Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act, besides, issuing notices under section 142(1) of the Act. After verification of details filed against notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made

Shree Velu Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 560/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.560/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Velu Builders Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Block No. 2, Alaka Palazu, 4/219, Income Tax, Poonamallee High Road, Kattupakkam, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 056. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs6653C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Assessment Order Exparte Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

notice requiring the assessee to explain as to why assessment should not be completed under section 144 of the Act. Additionally, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued along with questionnaire calling for requisite details. Since there is no reply/explanation from the assessee, the Assessing Officer

Arumugam Sivasankaran, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-4, Cuddaore

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

ITA 553/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.553/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arumugam Sivasankaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 160, National Agencies Ward 4, Main Road, Vasistapuram, Tittagudi, Cuddalore. Cuddalore 606 106. [Pan:Adqps5673J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 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 Under Section 69A Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Notice under section 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act with questionnaires was issued to the assessee. Notice under section 133(6) of the Act was also issued

Jcr Traders, Keelamathur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Trichy, Trichy

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

ITA 333/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.333/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jcr Traders, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 2/117, Thittakudi Road, Income Tax, Keelamathur, Tamil Nadu 621 173. Circle 1(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aalfj6942K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 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 93 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40Section 69

dated 24.09.2018 and served on the assessee. As there is no response to the above notice, notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.11.2019 was served on the assessee. Since there is no 3 I.T.A. No.333/Chny/25 compliance from the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued a show- cause notice

Dr Anbu Selvan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 332/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.332/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dr. Anbu Selvan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 323, Paper Mills Road, Perambur, Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai 600 011. Chennai. [Pan:Bnqpa3351L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Mohamed Shakeer, Advocate & Shri B. Harish, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 279 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 A. Mohamed Shakeer, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271

Thereafter, a notice under section 143(2) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 03.09.2021. Thereafter a notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 18.11.2021 along with the questionnaire. 5. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has submitted that he himself with

Mahendra Kumar, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the revisionary order passed u/s

ITA 812/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

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

ITA 462/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 461/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

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

ITA 460/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

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

ITA 459/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

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

ITA 458/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Muthu Dhanashekar, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2444/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 68

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

Sri. Panati Vikramdeva Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2323/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234

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

Virmabhai Ajabaji Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 544/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvirmabhai Ajabbaji Patel Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5) Room No. 201, Matru 156, Room No. 6, Mistry Mandir Bldg, Tardeo Bldg, 2Nd Kumbharwala Road, Mumbai. (Vijesh Metal) – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Agkpp3389B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250bSection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL