“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)

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 2732/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2732/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee..…………………..………………....…………………....Appellant Jalpaiguri Sadar, Jalpaiguri, W.B 735101.. [Pan: Aacaj0159Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Jalpaiguri...…….……....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pradeep Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Satyajit Mandal, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 19.09.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Deposited Substantial Cash In Its Savings Bank Account Maintained With Indian Overseas Bank During The Assessment Year 2016–17. It Is An Admitted Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, Proceedings Under Section 148A Of The Act Were Initiated. Show-Cause Notice Under Section 148A(B) Was Issued & Thereafter An Order Under Section

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

escaped assessment. Consequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. As no return of income was filed, statutory notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued. In response, the assessee submitted a reply dated 25.10.2024 stating that her income was exempt under section 10(26AAB

Sri Balagopalan Jewellerymart, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai vs. DCIT, Central Cir 3(3) Chennai, Investigation Building, Chennai

In the result, the captioned appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 3946/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: FixedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI सुश्री पद्मावती एस, लेखासदस्यकेसमक्ष श्रीमनुकुमारगिरि

Aa522 Kunnathur Velampalayam Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Ltd, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) Tirupur, Tirupur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3133/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 80P

technical expertise in income-tax law or e-for e-proceedings. 4 That during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2019-20, notices under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were issued through the e-proceedings portal. 5. That the society had engaged an external tax consultant ... issued by the Assessing Officer. 6. That due to failure and inaction on the part of the said consultant, the notices issued under section 142(1) were not responded to within time, without the knowledge or intention of the society to disregard statutory requirements. 7. That the non-compliance

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Acl Industries Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2592/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: None

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Coimbatore vs. Mani Ramasami, Tiruppur

ITA 1661/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. V. Lakshmi, Advocate

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Blr, Bengaluru vs. Davanam Constructions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2103/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Ble, Bengaluru vs. Davanam Constructions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2102/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Blr, Bengaluru vs. Davanam Constructions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2101/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

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

Sree Maruthi Co-Operative Housing Society, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. ITO Ward 7(2)(2), Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 2164/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Harish Hari Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 33(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7509/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarharish Hari Gandhi Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shop No.1, Gokul Monarch, Tax, Circle 33(1), Mumbai Room No. 949, 9Th Floor, Kautilya Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400101 Bhawan, G-Block, Bandra (E), Pan:Aadpg1721F Mumbai-400051 Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla, Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram [For Brevity ‘The Ld.Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 10.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 43CSection 48

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT

S Sagar Enterprise, Bandra, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Churchgate, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 4382/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia: A.Y. : 2019-20 S. Sagar Enterprise Vs. Dcit Central Circle 1(1), Be-5010, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai G Block, Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aagfs8866G (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G ”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

Ashok Kumar Mehrotra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 70(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4768/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarashok Kumar Mehrotra Vs. Ito, Ward 70(5) E-310, 3Rd Floor, Civic Centre, Greater Kailash-Ii, Minto Road New Dehli – 110048 New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alkpm8519K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

P a g e | 1 Ashok Kumar Mehrotra (AY: 2017-18) 09IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, DELHI

Pawan Garg, Panchkula vs. ITO Ward 5((5) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1218/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ, च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI

Xl Colour Coating, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3505/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3505/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Xl Colour Coating, Vs. The Income Tax Officer , Plot No. 76, Industrial Developed Plots, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Perungudi, Chennai 600 096. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafx0897J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

also received contract receipt of ₹.58,54,325/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued, but, however, there was no response from the assessee to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer

Venkataraman Giridharan, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3199/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Sonali, &For Respondent: Shri. Guru Prasad, Addl. C.I.T

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Mr. Anmol Govindram Sekhri, Bandra Arcade, Nandi Gully, Opp Bandra Railway St vs. Circle 16(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmrs. Suneeta Sekhri V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of (Legal Heir Of Mr. Anmol बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 16(2), Govindram Sekhri), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Ground Floor, Bandra Arcade, 400020, Maharashtra Nandi Gully, Opp. Bandra Railway Station, Bandra(West), Mumbai – 400 050, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alhps9957L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar & Ms. Rupal Shrimal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 68

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mystical Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

ITA 5222/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalι.Τ.Α. No.5222/Mum/2024 A.Y: 2011-12 Mystical Pvt Ltd Constructions A 603, A1 Akbar Bldg, Pe Road, Momin Nagar, Jogeswari (W), Mumbai - 400102 Pan - Aaccn5191N (Appellant) Vs Dcit, Circle 5(2)(1) Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai. (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Simran Dhawan A/W Mr. Ravi Gantara Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 06.08.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)Section 274

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Smt. Nirmal Puri, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5709/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH

Raghav Aditya Chits P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13, New Delh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)

3254_DEL_2018_Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE

Manharlal Keshavlal Bhimjiyani, Jetpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 913/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No.913/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम/ Shri Manharlal Keshavlal The Income Tax Officer, Bhimjiyani, Vs Ward-1(2)(3), G-15, Khodpara, Rajkot. Nr. Gopalvadi Temple, Jetpur- 360370(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acjpb9685M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट"ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT