← 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)

Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Khandwa vs. The ACIT Central-3, Indore

ITA 226/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Gunasekaran Vellayan, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(8), Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 150/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.149 & 150/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

Gunasekaran Vellayan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(8), Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 149/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.149 & 150/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1103/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

correct return of its total income for AY 2011-12. The aforesaid notice was followed by a communication dated 22 December 2022 under Section 142(1) requiring the petitioner to produce accounts and documents as per the annexure appended thereto. A follow-up notice under Section 142(1

Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 1044/CHNY/2023[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Dwarakesh, Ca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Chennai (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)') Dated 26.07.2023 Passed For Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2019-20.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

correct return of its total income for AY 2011-12. The aforesaid notice was followed by a communication dated 22 December 2022 under Section 142(1) requiring the petitioner to produce accounts and documents as per the annexure appended thereto. A follow-up notice under Section 142(1

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1008/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271ASection 274Section 68

case relevant to assessment of his income were called by means of a questionnaire. Later queries were raised vide notices under section 142(1) and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed fit. In response to the above referred notice(s), Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate attended the hearings. The information furnished

ITO, Ward-1(1), Solapur vs. Ms. Kshirsagar Fabrics, Solapur

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

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

aforesaid notice dt. 2nd March, 2006 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, the notice dt. 6th June, 2006 issued under Section 142(1) and the decision on the objections dt. 6th Oct., 2006 shall get quashed.” 22. We find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Venkata Suresh Babu Ratikindi, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 690/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.690/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Venkata Suresh Babu Vs. Income Tax Officer Ratikindi Ward -1 Nellore Nellore Pan:Atnpr5184N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)

ITA No 690 of 2024 Venkata Suresh Babu Ratikindi आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Nirmal Dutta, Jalpaiguri vs. A.O./I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 1484/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68

required the assessee to furnish necessary evidence while the assessee remained silent on this issue. A specific query was raised vide notice under section 142(1) and the assessee responded that the capital introduced was for smooth running of the business without any explanation for the source of the same

Ashok Kumar Verma, Chomehla, Jhalawar vs. ACIT, Kota

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

ITA 529/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhelesh Kataria (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Harish Kumar Ji, both aggregating to Rs. 20,30,602, It is further evident from the assessment order that the notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated was issued to the appellant asking the appellant to file various details /information/documents in connection with the interest

Milan Hasmukhlal Mithawala, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1504/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 206CSection 250Section 271(1)(b)

mentioned above, proceedings under section 147 were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 27/03/2018. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued requesting the assessee to submit the details required for completing the assessment. However, the assessee did not reply

Johar Hasan Zojwalla, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 56(2)(i)

notice issued under section 148 of the Act. In response to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee attended the proceedings and filed a copy of the bank account and names of the company/firm where the assessee ... income from other sources. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee. It is evident from the record that during the assessment proceedings

Vikas Sabharwal HUF, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms as aforesaid

ITA 740/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Bachan Kaur, Pehowa, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurukshetra, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 715/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Id. Cit(A) Under National Faceless Appeal Centre Wherein Again, There Was Non Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee & By Referring To The Material On Record, The Id Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition. Hence This Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 253Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Pavan Kranti Nadiminti, Pm Palem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 303/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 303/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pavan Kranti Nadiminti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(4), Pan: Agxpn5603K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Muralidhar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri M. Muralidhar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीयअिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ, िवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"ी, "याियक

Neem Tree Enterprise, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1710/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1707, 1708, 1708 & 1710/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Neem Tree Enterprise, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 20/77, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna Non Corporate Ward – 7(1), Nagar Extension, Chennai 600 101.. Chennai. [Pan: Aaifn3492M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], but, no return of income filed in response to the said notice. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer requested the assessee to furnish all bank accounts, details relating to rental income, details of TDS/TCS, etc. the assessee uploaded

Neem Tree Enterprise, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1709/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1707, 1708, 1708 & 1710/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Neem Tree Enterprise, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 20/77, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna Non Corporate Ward – 7(1), Nagar Extension, Chennai 600 101.. Chennai. [Pan: Aaifn3492M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], but, no return of income filed in response to the said notice. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer requested the assessee to furnish all bank accounts, details relating to rental income, details of TDS/TCS, etc. the assessee uploaded

Neem Tree Enterprise, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1708/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1707, 1708, 1708 & 1710/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Neem Tree Enterprise, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 20/77, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna Non Corporate Ward – 7(1), Nagar Extension, Chennai 600 101.. Chennai. [Pan: Aaifn3492M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], but, no return of income filed in response to the said notice. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer requested the assessee to furnish all bank accounts, details relating to rental income, details of TDS/TCS, etc. the assessee uploaded

Neem Tree Enterprise, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1707/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1707, 1708, 1708 & 1710/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Neem Tree Enterprise, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 20/77, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Anna Non Corporate Ward – 7(1), Nagar Extension, Chennai 600 101.. Chennai. [Pan: Aaifn3492M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], but, no return of income filed in response to the said notice. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer requested the assessee to furnish all bank accounts, details relating to rental income, details of TDS/TCS, etc. the assessee uploaded

Mohan Singh, Vidhyadhar Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ncrb Jaipur

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

ITA 191/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234A

response to the notice issued the assessee furnished the details as called for in the annexure to the notice issued under section 142(1) dated above and verified. 4.1 The Id. AO noted that the assessee is in the business of trading of agricultural goods. During