“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)

S B Cold Storage Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 7(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1816/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2016-17 S B Cold Storage Acit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata. Industries Pvt. Ltd. 55, Bhupendra Bose Vs Avenue, Shyampukur, Kolkata-700004. (Pan: Aadcs8922M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri N. C.Mondal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Coimbatore [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”.).

For Appellant: Shri N. C.Mondal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT

Megapix Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1151/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1151/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Megapix Vanijya Pvt. Ltd……………………………………………..…..……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aahcm6624J] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata............…....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 26.09.2012 By Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.4,540/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Due To Large Share Premium Received By The Assessee During The Relevant Financial Year. Consequently, The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 142(1) & 142(2) Of The Act Requesting For Furnishing Requisite Information. In Response To The Notices, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Assessing Officer & Provided Primary Details Including An Explanation That The Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading. Upon

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish

Kco Aluminium LLP, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1137/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

mind as the record of the assessment shows that the appropriate enquiry was made by the Ld. AO through issuance of Notices under section 142(1) of the Act, 1961 from time to time. 4. That on the facts and circumstances, the Ld. AO in the Notice u/s 142(1

Bani Broto Banerjee, Kolkata vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 520/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 520/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Bani Broto Banerjee,…………………..…………Appellant Sanskriti, Flat – 3A, 148, Rashbehari Avenue, Near Deshapriya Park, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Abppb0424P] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),……Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Bisws, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 57

total income of Rs.33,67,460/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under section 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On perusal of 2 Bani Broto Banerjee the record, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that

Income Tax Officer, Burdwan vs. Paharhati O Uttar Memari Cooperative Agricultural Marketing Society Limited, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1455/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, ACITFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Rainbow Productions Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1246/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2012-13 Rainbow Production Ltd. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata. 85A,Navina Cinema, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Vs Kolkatea-700033. (Pan: Aabcr1909B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri G. Banerjee, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”.).

For Appellant: Shri G. Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT

Smt. Lingammal Ramaraju Shastra Prathishta Trust, Rajapalayam vs. ACIT (Exemptions), Coimbatore

ITA 1250/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 264

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Late Muthumalainadar Krishnavel, Represented by 6 Legal Heirs, Tuticorin vs. PCIT-1, Madurai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1018/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1018/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. K.Indira, Pcit-1 Shri K.Muthuvel, Madurai. Shri Selvakumaran, Shri M.K.Balaji बनाम/ Shri K.Ragupathy, Shri K.Sudhakar Vs. All L/Hs Of Late Shri Muthumalainadar Krishnavel, 15, Melanavaladivillai, Arumuganeri, Tuticorin-628 202. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bctpk-6952-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Shrimati Phoolwati Memorial Educational Society, Baghpat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Baraut

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1057/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, A.Yr. : 2017-18 Shrimati Phoolwati Vs. Income Tax Officer, Memorial Educational Ward 1(5), Society, Baraut, Agarwal Mandi, Tatiri, Baghpat, Up-250611 Baghpat, Meerut Road, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh-250601 (Pan: Aaaap6353L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, A.YR. : 2017-18

Arshad Mahmood Khan, Lucknow vs. ITO-2(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 622/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Arshad Mahmood Khan V. Ito-2(1) Flat No.500, Windsor Court-Iii Lucknow 93H, Dalibagh Ganna Sansthan Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ajpk0388G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Arshad Mahmood Khan (Assessee) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Had Received Information That The Assessee Had Made High Value Transaction During The Year Under Consideration & That There Were Credit Entries Of Rs.31,14,885/- In The Assessee’S Bank Account No.26231930000676 & Of Rs.15,49,850/- In Bank Account

For Appellant: Shri Arshad Mahmood Khan (Assessee)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 274Section 69Section 69A

Since no return of income had been filed by the assessee in response to the said notice, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, requiring the assessee to furnish details/information for finalizing the assessment in connection with the issue involved in the assessee’s case. However

Rajendra Pratap Yadav, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC

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

ITA 614/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendra Pratap Yadav V. The Cit(A) 21/202, Indira Nagar Nfac Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acmpy9678E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

filed the ITA No.614/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 ITR for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) to the assessee. Since the assessee failed to respond to the notice issued

Karan Singh, Unnao vs. ITO-2(4), Unnao

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Karan Singh V. Ito-2(4) 496, Hiran Nagar Unnao _ New Unnao, Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Aqwpls6478L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 11 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.09.2020, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-01, Lucknow (Ld. Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had E- Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,47,580/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.10,00,000/- In Old Sbns (Specified Bank Notes) On 15.11.2016 In His Bank Account No.010010100010068 With Aryavart Bank. Accordingly, The Ao Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Along With A Questionnaire.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kumar Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

SBNs (Specified Bank Notes) on 15.11.2016 in his bank account No.010010100010068 with Aryavart Bank. Accordingly, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), along with a questionnaire. ITA No.494/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 7 However, there was no compliance ... statement of the assessee from the bank by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act. The AO, thereafter, issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, giving last opportunity to the assessee to submit his explanation. Since, again, there was no compliance by the assessee

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Panchkula vs. ACIT, Panchkula

ITA 734/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Ao.” 3. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That This Is The Second Round Of Appellate Proceedings Before The Tribunal. In The First Round, The Matter Relating To The Land Development & Other Miscellaneous Expense Claimed By The Assessee Was Remitted Back To The File Of The Ao & The Relevant Findings Of The Coordinate Bench Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Assessee with Shri Jatin Aggarwal, Assessee’s sonFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)

Thereafter, summons were issued by the AO under section 131 to these two persons. However, they same were returned unserved. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee to produce these two persons alongwith there ID and other documentary evidence. In response, Shri Jatin Aggarwal

Tpl- Sucg Consortium, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 753/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

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

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Puducherry vs. Saranya Agro Foods Private Limited, Puducherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 397/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. G. Natarajan, CAFor Respondent: Mr. P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai - 1, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1590/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.1590/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Stay Application No.27/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1590/Chny/2024) (िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Cholamandalam Investment Pcit & Finance Company Limited Chennai-1 बनाम Chola Crest, C-54 & 55, Super B-4, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, / Vs. Guindy Industrial Estate, S.O., Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-1226-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri Ajit Jain, Kunal Shah & Ms. Aashna Dhila (Cas)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Jain, Kunal Shah &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

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

Subhash Chandra Keshan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3348/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh BandiFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM ITA

Sachin Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 47(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3246/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roysachin Jain Vs. Ito,Ward-47(2) 1732, Mz Floor, Nayi Drumshape Building, Basti, Naya Bazar, Delhi- 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aijpj5875F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

initiated against the assessee and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2019 was served upon the assessee followed by notice under Section 142(1) dated 16.08.2019 alongwith the detailed questionnaire in relating to issue of cash deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- in the bank account maintained ... sent through email copy whereof is on record before us. This reply was made by the assessee against the notice dated 11.12.2019 under Section 142(1) of the Act. Though the assessee has made a request on 14.12.2019 for providing a copy of reason so recorded

Fujitsu Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2607/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshfujitsu Ltd, Vs. Acit, 3Rd Floor, Building No. 9B, Circle-1(3)(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon, International Taxation, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacf7231M Assessee By : Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv Ms. Shruti Khimta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, Cit Dr Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 197

relevant year. i) Copy of notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 31-3-2021. j) Copy of notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 9-9-2021. k) Response to questions relevant for taxability of income. 11. The Learned DRP sought for a remand report

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 448/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Lalji Yadav. Ito-1(2) V. 3/152A, Vivek Khand, Gomti Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh- 57, Ramtirth Marg, 226010. Lucknow-226001 Pan:Aakpy2220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH