← 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)

Shree Auro Iron Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Pravin Saraswant, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 48

under section 148 dated 30.03.2021 was served on the assessee. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the faceless assessment unit. Accordingly, notices under section 142(1) were issued on 24.11.2021 and 11.02.2022. In response the assessee filed replies on 09.12.2021, 24.01.2022 & 19.02.2022. The AO, after taking into account all relevant ... assessee has not provided any evidence for claim of indexed cost of acquisition and improvement, in proceedings before DIT (I&CI). Notices under section 142(1) were issued under Faceless manner dated 24.11.2021 and 11.02.2022 which were duly responded by the appellant and on these replies of the assessee

Ram Swaroop Balai, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

issued 6 Ram Swaroop vs. DCIT. on 25.09.2018 which was duly upon the assessee through Speed Post. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 along with questionnaire was issued on 31.10.2018 requiring certain data/information/explanation/evidence through electronically mode. Further, notice under section 142(1

ACIT, Ncr Building, Jaipur vs. Hans Raj Agarwal, Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1253/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vijay, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y

Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1192/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 153CSection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Jaipur vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1149/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 153CSection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh

ITO, Ward-2(1), Ludhiana vs. Ashwani Kumar Jain, Ludihana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1083/CHANDI/2024[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Balbir Khanna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

complete scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. AO thereafter issued questionnaire under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The AO has observed that a search & seizure operation was carried out upon one Shri Aditya Kumar Jha, Chartered

Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward 3, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 80/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Thakral, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271FSection 68

income and violated the provision of Income Tax. Therefore penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act were initiated. Subsequently, the notice under section 142(1) dt. 20/06/2016 alongwith Questionnaire were issued and assessee was sought to furnish the source of cash deposit, but no reply was filed

M/S Saber Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 349/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (withdrawal application )For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

reply was filed by the assessee after issuance of Show Cause Notice. Further specific questionnaire as per the appraisal report alongwith notices under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 29.01.2015, which were duly served upon the assessee. 3…….. 4…….. 5…….. 6. On perusal of the Balance Sheet

Govindji Budhaji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 87/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.87/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Govindji Budhaji Thakor The Ito Shakar Bhuwan बनाम / Ward-3(3)(2) Makarbiya Wad V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 B/H. Karnavati Club S.G. Highway, Mohmedpura Ahmedabad – 380 058 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Apopc 8837 L (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manish J. Shah & Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.02.2024, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Arising Out Of The Ex-Parte Assessment Order Dated 19/11/2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"], By The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(2), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”].

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 69A

notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2018 through ITBA, which was duly served on the assessee. Subsequent notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 22.05.2019 and 05.10.2019 were issued, calling for specific details, but no compliance was made by the assessee. A final show-cause

Nihal Industries Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1488/AHD/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1488/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nihal Industries Private The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Limited Ward-3(1)(1) V/S. 1961, Above Royal Cycle Ahmedabad Inside Panchkuwa Panchkuwa Ahmedabad – 380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcn 7129 D (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arjav D. Vidani, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.06.2024, Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. Nihal Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arjav D. Vidani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Section 147 of the Act, and a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 28.08.2022. The AO issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act on 03.04.2023, 19.04.2023, and 25.04.2023. The assessee failed to comply with these notices, and consequently, the AO completed the assessment under ... entirely convincing. Therefore, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated reasonable cause for non-compliance with the statutory notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. Nihal Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 7.2. However, while the failure to respond to statutory notices warrants the levy

M/S. J.R. Construction Co., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3292/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 25.08.2011 and served upon the assessee. Further notice under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued on 31.07.2012. In response to the said notices, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted

Regus Business Centre Hyderabad Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1396/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1396/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Regus Business Centre Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Private Limited Ward – 3 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcr2556C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Sp Chidambaram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate SP ChidambaramFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 144Section 221(1)

ITA No 1396 of 2024 Regus Business Centre Hyderabad P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Utpal Sarkar, Hooghly vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 23, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed subject to verification as above in para 5

ITA 1514/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Mar 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री प्रदीप

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle-2, Madurai, Meenambalpuram Madurai vs. Palraj Jeyakumar, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1651/CHNY/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1651/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Palraj Jeyakumar, Income Tax, Circle -2, 79, Sanjeevi Street, Meenakshi Nagar, Madurai. Avaniapuram, Madurai 625 012. [Pan:Adppj7550C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised Ground No. 1 To 2.3, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

filed return of income, declaring total income of ₹.31,51,430/-. The assessee filed reply dated 26.12.2018 in response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. On an examination of the same, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to produce the clients for whom

Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited (Formerly Known As Eurofins Advinus Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1115/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das - CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Douceur Sportwear Mfg. Co Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6152/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Smt. Swapnil Newaskar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)

Rs.1,46,26,640/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to submit details of ageing of sundry

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

ITA No.1650, 1653 to 1655/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Gold Cause Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbc World India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3489/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Circle 7 (1), Vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.1, Subplot 4, 5, 8 & 9 Msil, Supplier Park, Phase 3A, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon – 1222 050 (Haryana). (Pan :Aabcf1682P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue 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 30.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Nfac Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Amounting To Rs.5,90,59,019/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Loss On Account Of Plant & Machinery.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR

Madhavan Sundaran Pillai, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Kollam

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

ITA 739/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Panicker, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144(1)Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K