← 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)

Peddini Ashok Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 356/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.356/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Peddini Ashok Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer- Ward-4(1) D.No. 49-36-13/1 Income Tax Office Nggo’S Colony, Akkayyapalem Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aqlpp3626L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

income, P&L Account, Balance sheet, Form 3CB, Form 3CD reports for the A.Y. 2017-18. Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act requesting the assessee to furnish copies of all the bank account statements along with explanation towards the sources for cash deposits made ... cash deposited during the demonetization period with supporting evidences. The assessee has not responded to the notice. Further, Ld.AO issued notices under section 142(1) Page No. 3 I.T.A.No.356/VIZ/2024 Peddini Ashok Kumar dated 11.10.2019, 07.11.2019 & 28.11.2019 requesting the assessee to furnish the information as called for. The assessee again

Bdg Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1216/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1216/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Bdg Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,….………………………Appellant 26, P.K. Tagore Street, Kolkata-700006 [Pan:Aabcb0391B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

filed its return of income on 03.08.2020 for the assessment year 2013-14 showing total income of Rs.83,770/- . Subsequently notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued 2 BDG Holdings Pvt. Ltd. but there was no compliance from the assessee. Thereafter the ld. Assessing Officer concluded

M/S. Aashish Auto Components Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1767/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1767/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Aashish Auto Components Income Tax Officer, Manufacturers Pvt Ltd., V. Corporate Ward -1(2), No.86, Govindappa Naicken Street, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, George Town, Chennai – 600 001 Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaaca-5586-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024

For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuddalore vs. Cholaji Kanniyalal, Kamaraj Street, Villupuram

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

ITA 1674/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1674/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 51/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Cholaji Kanniyalal, Income Tax, V. No. 191, Kamaraj Street, Circle -1, Villupuram, Cuddalore – 607 002. Tamil Nadu – 605 602. [Pan: Aaepk-4555-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit Department By : Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, CA
Section 139(1)Section 44ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस िव"ने

Mohan Lal Ashok Kumar Saraf, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

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

Sh. Pooran Mal Kanwat, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

18. As a result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A), and impugned assessments framed by Assessing Officer, are set aside

ITA 82/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 50CSection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

ITA 458/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H.)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 271Section 271(1)

2 2. 1 on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1012/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Ld
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1011/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Ld
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Rajasthan Shiksha Sankul Bhawan Samiti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1010/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Ld
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Babu Sahab, Sandur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hosapete

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Babu Sahab, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Deogiri Post Sandur Tq, Ward –2, Bellary Dist. – 583 112. Hosapete. Pan : Aqqps 2313 J Appellant Respondent Respondent By : Shri. Shiv Prasad Reddy, Ar Appellant By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061565361(1)].

For Appellant: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for RevenueFor Respondent: Shri. Shiv Prasad Reddy, AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

during demonetization period and there was no proof for filing the return of income for the relevant Assessment Year, therefore, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee and time was granted to file return of income. However, the assessee did not file return

Sri. Basaveshwara Patthina Souharda Shakari Niyamitha, Kothagudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 2022/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

ITA No.2022/Bang/2024 Sri Basaveshwara Patthina Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha, Kothagudem IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Paresh R Pujara HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4231/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Paresh R Pujara Huf Ito Ward 27(2)(5) Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, A-3/10, Chitaranjan Nagar, Rajawadi Ghatkopar (E), Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aajhp 4668 L (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta : Shri Tushar Mohite Respondent By : 17.10.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Cit (Appeals) Has, Erred In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed In Gross Violation Of The Principle Of Natural Justice. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Cit (Appeals), Mumbai Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: 17.10.2024
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito, Vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable 618, Mtnl Cumballa Hill Telephone Trust, Exchange Building, Peddar Road, 405A, 407, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Maharashtra – 400 026 10, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaatm0140K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Sarad Singh, Delhi vs. Parvesh Kumar Chawla, Income Tax Officer Ward 36(8) Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3467/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Saraswati Educational Society Regd., New Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

ITA 1889/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 263

Annexure No. CA - 5 to the counter affidavit and submits that the reply has been submitted by the assessee in the proceedings under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, which was considered. The said submission, on the face of it, has no legs to stand

Viyona Sales and Marketing Private Limited vs. ITO Ward 26(3), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1520/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1520/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) Viyona Sales & Marketing P. Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi 110014 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecv-7844-C

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajeev Saxena, Dishant Sethi &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एसएमसी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

DCIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi vs. Charles (India) Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1912/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2014-15 Dcit Vs. M/S. Charles (India) Pvt. Ltd Central Circle – 08, Room No.603, 27, Weston Street, New Delhi Kolkata – 700 012 Tan/ Pan : Aabcc 0116 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Amit Goel, C.A. & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Surender Pal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Lingnoor Doodh Utpadak and Puravatha Sah Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sangli

ITA 1875/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1875/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Lingnoor Doodh Utpadak V The Income Tax Officer & Puravatha Sah Sanstha S Ward – 1, Sangli. Maryadit, Lingnur, Miraj, Sangli – 416401. Pan: Aabal1723F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri A.D.Kulkarni – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 25.07.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal) Has Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Deduction U/S 80P Of The Income Tax Act In Respect Of The Income Of Rs.29,66,901.00 (Deduction Claimed; Rs.30,66,901.00 (-) Deduction Allowed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 80P(2)(C) Of The Income Tax Act; Rs.50,000.00)”

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(c)

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL