← 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)

Rohit Baid, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 15/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.15/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rohit Baid………………………..…………………… ........................……Appellant Nokha House, 190B, S P Mukherjee Road, Kalighat, Kolkata – 700026. [Pan: Adppb7719R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bikash Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata Was Not Vested With The Pecuniary Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration, Therefore, The Notice U/S 148 Dated 3 1.03.2021 Issued By Non-Jurisdictional Ao Does Not Have Legal Sanctity & Thus Subsequent Proceedings & Assessment Dated 07.11.2023 Cannot Be Sustained & Is Liable For Being Struck Down, Thus Bad In Law & Void.

Section 120Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 292B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri

Mrs Nirmalaben Popatlall Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3649/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. K. A. Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Akhatar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 54

sources. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details regarding

Tushar Ramnath Shetty, Andheri East vs. The Imcome Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3074/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Akhatar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

Rs.5,12,340. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, upon perusal of the details filed by the assessee

Shri Dilip K Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3018/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmil Jhaveri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Akhatar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 250

aforesaid notice, the assessee furnished a copy of the return filed on 30/09/2009. Subsequently, statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the statutory notices, the assessee furnished the details/explanations as called

Shree Dhama Infrastructure Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2715/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2015-16 Shree Dhama Infrastructure Private Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Limited, Ghaziabad C-12/114/116, 1St Floor, D.B. Plaza, Rdc, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh – 201 002 (Pan: Aaocs4571C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Nair, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHIR

Nepal Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(5), Ghazaibad

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

ITA 2714/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2714/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Nepal Singh, 6Ra, Quarter No. 66, Ordnance Factory Estate, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, U.P 201002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Ckgps-5165-Q बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Ghaziabad ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Uttar Pradesh 201001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To 'The Cit(A)') Dated 08.04.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. A Perusal Of The Assessment Order Shows That Notice U/S. 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 17.01.2018, 09.08.2019, 03.09.2019 & 18.09.2019. Except To The Notice Issued On 09.08.2019, The Assessee Has Not Responded To Any Of The Notices. In Response To Notice Dated 09.08.2019, The Assessee Had Furnished

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144

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

Pawan Kumar, Sonepat vs. ITO Ward-3, Sonipat

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

ITA 2338/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2338/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2011-12) Pawan Kumar, Vpo, Khubru The Ganaur, District Sonepat, Haryana 131101 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bdhpk-9705-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Sonepat ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haryana अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To 'The Cit(A)’) Dated 22.06.2023, For Ay 2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are; The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2011-12 Declaring Income Of Rs. 1,15,600/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs. 4,95,700/-. The Assessment For Ay 2011-12 Was Reopened U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To 'The Act’), On The Ground That The Assessee Has Made Cash Deposits Amounting To Rs. 21,90,000/- + Rs. 8,52,000/-In Savings Bank Account With Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Khubru

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

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

Apni Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Noida

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

ITA 2203/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

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

Sarfraz Alam Tabraiz, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 662/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarfraz Alam Tabraiz, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Adupt6123E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate Revenue By: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2024

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 69C

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

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle -5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 509/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

Shruti Chowdhary, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-30(7), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

ITA No. 757/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Shruti Chowdhary THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav

Harbans Singh Bagga, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1231/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1231/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harbans Singh Bagga.…....………………………… ........................……Appellant A-7 Rajasthali, No-3 Jamadar Khan Lane Near Copper House, Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Afbpb0526J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Contested The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.1,14,41,888/- Treating The Long-Term Capital Gains Claimed By The Assessee As Bogus. The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Aforesaid Additions Not Only On Merits But Also On The Ground That The Concerned Assessing Officer Did Not Have The Pecuniary Jurisdiction To Pass The Assessment Order In Question By Way Of Additional Legal Ground. Since The Additional Legal Ground Taken By The

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri

Muthusami Balasubramaniam, Tiruchengode vs. Ward 1, Tiruchengode

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1664/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील िं./Ita No.1664/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muthusami Balasubramaniam, Income Tax Officer, No.34, Agraharam Street, Vs. Ward-1, Tiruchengode, Tiruchengode, Namakkal, Tiruchengode, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637 211. [Pan: Agcpb1728Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Assessee By : Shri Sricharan, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit ुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Sricharan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष

Manikandan Subash Chandra Bose, Thirumangalam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Madurai

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

ITA 1452/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1452/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Manikandan Subash Chandra V. Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Bose, Madurai – 625 002. New No. 70 (Old 131), Big Bazaar Street, Thirumangalam – 625 706 [Pan: Abcpm-6497-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Pratap, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Pratap, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S Ruby Realty Pvt. Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 1030/CHNY/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1030/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ruby Realty Private Limited, Income Tax, Office B 908, Radiance Shine Central Circle 3(4), Apartments, Kazhipattur Omr, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 603 103. [Pan:Aadcr2832B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Restricting The Addition To An Extent Of ₹.82.35 Lakhs In Respect Of Proportionate Share Of Land In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, C.A
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

return of income in terms of notice under section 153C of the Act. Notices under section 143(2) and under section 142(1) of the Act were issued and the assessment was completed based on the facts presented and details furnished, inter alia, making addition

Mahaveer Prasad and Sons (HUF), Kota vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Kota

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

ITA 578/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Paradise Properties, Sarojni Marg, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 324/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

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

Mount Mary Nagari Co Op Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 3475/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271FSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

with IDBI Bank and Rs.16,80,000/- with Saraswat Cooperative Bank. The assessee did not file any return of income and notice under Section 142(1) of the Act for filing of return for the year under consideration was issued to the asessee on 12.12.2017 through ITBA, in response whereof

Shubhmultitrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-11(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2881/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Akhatar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 250

Rs.2730. The return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. However, no response was filed on behalf of the assessee. During the assessment proceedings

Rakesh Patel, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 60(8), New Delhi

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

ITA 3933/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 133Section 143(2)Section 245ASection 249(3)Section 69A

ICICI Bank, had not filed any Income Tax Return (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) for the relevant year. Therefore, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’) to the appellant/assessee to file his ITR. However, the appellant/assessee did not ensure any compliance. Thereafter