← 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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Andhra Pradesh Urban Financial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, Vijayawada

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 327/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.318, 327 & 328/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. Andhra Pradesh Urban Financial & Infrastructure Development Central Revenue Buildings Corporation M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 54-15-5, Srinivasa Nagar Bank Colony Opp. Venue Convention Centre-520008 Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaifa9311J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

return of income, Ld. AO, Ward 6(1) Hyderabad issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. Subsequently, a notice under section 142(1) was issued on 08.09.2021. Thereafter on 11.11.2021 the case was transferred to ReAC from Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Again, the case was transferred back ... Ward 2(3), Vijayawada on 02.02.2022 from ReAC. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.03.2022 was issued and served on the assessee. Ld. AO. Ward-6, Hyderabad also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to Union bank of India. In response to notice

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Andhra Pradesh Urban Financial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, Vijayawada

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 318/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.318, 327 & 328/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit – Circle – 1(1) V. Andhra Pradesh Urban Financial & Infrastructure Development Central Revenue Buildings Corporation M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 54-15-5, Srinivasa Nagar Bank Colony Opp. Venue Convention Centre-520008 Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaifa9311J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

return of income, Ld. AO, Ward 6(1) Hyderabad issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. Subsequently, a notice under section 142(1) was issued on 08.09.2021. Thereafter on 11.11.2021 the case was transferred to ReAC from Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad. Again, the case was transferred back ... Ward 2(3), Vijayawada on 02.02.2022 from ReAC. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.03.2022 was issued and served on the assessee. Ld. AO. Ward-6, Hyderabad also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to Union bank of India. In response to notice

Taliparamba Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. C. 1007, Perumba vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kannur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 219/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

were admittedly filed after the dates prescribed under Sections 139(1) and 139(4) or in the notices issued under Section 142(1) and Section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before

Ved Prakash Sharma, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

after obtaining approval under section 151(1) from the competent authority. The assessee did not respond to the said notice. Therefore, noticeunder section 142(1) dated 09.09.2021 was issued requiring the assessee to furnish return of income and other details/documents. No compliance was made by the assessee to this notice ... compliance was made from the side of the assessee, a final opportunity was given to the assessee by issuing a notice under section 142(1) dated 14.09.2021 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the case should not be completed under section

Paras Kuhad, Jaipur vs. ACIT - 7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1004/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Mohammad Mushtaq, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Circle, Panchkula

ITA 694/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 246ASection 253

That notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. 2.4 That a Questionnaire alongwith notice under Section 142(1) was also issued. 2.5 That the assessee filed required details, information/documents etc. which were verified. 2.6 The assessee is into the business of Trading

Pavan Prabhudyal Bhadada, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Ahmedabad, Income Tax Office, Vejalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 620/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

proceedings, which is impermissible. Thirdly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the reassessment proceedings, the A.O. issued a notice under section 142(1) to inquire about the relevant issue in response to which the assessee filed reply dated 07.03.2022, submitting the necessary information, including Form 26AS, Part

ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Spectra India Eco Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Spectra India Eco Projects Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaycso648H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ravi BharadawajFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 270ASection 271D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 263

ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Duraiswamy Chinnadurai, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(4), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1782/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1782 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2013-14 Duraiswamy Chinnadurai, Income Tax Officer, No.146, N.G.N.Street, Non Corp, Ward-4(4), New Siddhapudur, Coimbatore Coimbatore. [Pan: Acppc1349B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Ramachandran, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064762387(1) Dated 09.05.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013- 14. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 09.05.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. 2.0 The Assessee Has Raised Altogether Seven Grounds Of Appeal, Of Which Grounds 1 To 4 Are Legal Grounds & Grounds 5 To 7 On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri S.Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क

Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Tambaram, Chennai vs. P Bhuvaneswari, India

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1779/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1779 /Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, P.Bhuvaneswari, Non-Corp. Ward-22(1), No.2/128A, Braminar Street, Tambaram, Madurantakam, Chennai Chengalpet District, Tamil Nadu - 603 306. [Pan: Armpb3783A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Colombo Stores, Karaikudi

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1413/CHNY/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1413/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Acit M/S Colombo Stores बनाम/ Central Circle-2, 79/1, Kallukatti East, Vs. Madurai. Karaikudi, Sivagangai-630 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaffc-8405-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri R. Meenakshi Sundaram (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Meenakshi SundaramFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 133ASection 144

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ballri., Ballari vs. Ms Abdul Maneed Engineers and Contractors, Kalaburagi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1482/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V, ACIT (DR)
Section 132Section 144Section 153A

assessee. This addition was made considering that: 1. The assessee did not cooperate in the assessment proceedings. 2. Notices issued under Sections 142(1) and 144 were not complied with. 3. The assessee failed to submit books of accounts, bills, and vouchers to support their reported income ... assessee had allegedly failed to cooperate by not submitting books of accounts, bills, and vouchers in response to the notices issued under Sections 142(1) and 144 of the Act. 13.2 The assessee, being aggrieved by this addition, filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A), arguing that no incriminating material

Anjuman E Farogh E Islam Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5544/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.S. MithwaniFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

filed its return of income on 16/10/2018 declaring a total income of INR 22,170. Thereafter, statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. However, the assessee did not furnish any details as called for during the year

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Mahendra Misrimalji Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3992/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit Vs. Mahendra Misrimalji 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Shah, Room No. 28, 2Nd Chamber, Lalbaug, Floor, Lehari Building Mumbai- 400012 Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai - 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Bjdps7198J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

P a g e | 1 ITA No.3992/Mum/2024 & C.O. 179/Mum/2024 Mahendra Misrimalji Shah A.Y. 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Nayara Energy Limited (Formerly Known As Essar Oil Limited), Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai

ITA 2556/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

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

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan vs. Bhagwati Prasad N Rungta, India

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

ITA 1574/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Mrs. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. RENU

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Usha Sharma, New Delhi

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

ITA 466/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Revelation Unique Retail & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Marketing Private Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-3, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Aaicr9933L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

duly served through the ITBA. No response to the notice under Section 153C of the Act was filed. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 31.10.2022 was issued to the assessee but no reply filed. Notice under Section 274 read with section 272A(1

Sunita Sherwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 506/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.506/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Sunita Sherwani S-19, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Attps9943C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH