← 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)

Sundip Kumar Gupta., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-47, Kolkata.

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1170/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1170 To1173/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sundip Kumar Gupta..…………………....................…...……………....Appellant Fort Oasis Complex, Flat No.040903, Block-436B, Panditya Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aebpg7187B] Vs. Dcit, Circle-47, Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Bunch Of Four Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 15.09.2023 & 06.09.2023, Respectively, 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’). Since The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. At The Request Of Ld. Representatives Of The Parties, Ita No.1170/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

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

Societe Generale Global Solution Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1028/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Rony Antony, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 1Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 44ASection 90

ITA No.1028/Bang/2024 Societe Generale Global Solution Centre Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

Film Set Light Spot Welfare Society, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2819/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito (Exemption) –1 (3) Film Set Light Spot Vs. 6Th Floor, Mtnl, Welfare Society, Ex Building, Flat No.101, C Wing, Cumballa Hills, 1St Floor, Om Swarup Pedder Road, Chsl, Kadamwadi, Mumbai-400026. Marol Pipeline, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400059. Pan/Gir No. Aaacf8676L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 25

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Parish Agarwal (Prop.of M/S Balsons Jewellers), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 579/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 Parish Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2)(4) (Prop. Of M/S Balsons Noida Jewellers) J-51, Sector-18, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201 301 Pan Aeipa1187Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year 2017-18 Dcit, Central Vs. Parish Agarwal, Circle-1, Noida (Prop. Of M/S. Balsons Jewellers) J-51, Sector-18, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201 301 Pan Aeipa1187Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

Parish Agarwal) on 18.3.2017. No documents including incriminating documents which were impounded during the course of survey proceedings have been received. Notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with its questionnaire were issued. The assessee has submitted his reply from time to time. The assessee

Parish Agarwal, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 272/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 Parish Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2)(4) (Prop. Of M/S Balsons Noida Jewellers) J-51, Sector-18, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201 301 Pan Aeipa1187Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year 2017-18 Dcit, Central Vs. Parish Agarwal, Circle-1, Noida (Prop. Of M/S. Balsons Jewellers) J-51, Sector-18, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201 301 Pan Aeipa1187Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

Parish Agarwal) on 18.3.2017. No documents including incriminating documents which were impounded during the course of survey proceedings have been received. Notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with its questionnaire were issued. The assessee has submitted his reply from time to time. The assessee

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

Jsw Ispat Special Products Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 17, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1052/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2014-15 Jsw Ispat Special Products Vs. Dcit, Limited (Formerly Known As Circle-17(1), Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd.) New Delhi. 11 Monnet House, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-Ii New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacm0501D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 31Section 53Section 7

filed on 30.11.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. First notice under section 143(2) was issued on 28.08.2015. Notices under section 142(1) along with detailed questionnaire dated 12.4.2016 and another notice dated 9.8.2016 were issued. Chartered Accountant / Authorised Representative of assessee appeared and furnished necessary details

Naveet Sharma, Vill.Nagabag P.O.Bandrol vs. ITO Ward Kullu, Kullu

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

ITA 744/CHANDI/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

For Appellant: Shri Amitoz Singh Kamboj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

The Khanyan Multipurpose Coop Agricultural Service Societyltd, Village Khanyan vs. DCIT, Circle, Mandi Gobindgarh Hq Sirhind

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 719/CHANDI/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

The Khanyan Multipurpose Coop Agricultural Service Society Ltd, Village Khanyan vs. DCIT Circle Mandi Gobindgarh Hq Sirhind

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 718/CHANDI/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Premila Mukeshbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1049/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 16Th October, 2023 Passed By 2

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 68Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Premila Mukeshbhai

Rajesh Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-2(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 319/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

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

Greens Natures Fresh Farms Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 246/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Nagaraj Angadi, Sindhanur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1073/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Tamil Selvan S., D.R
Section 115BSection 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

ITA No.1073/Bang/2024 & SP 27/Bang/2024 Nagaraj Angadi, Sindhanur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

ITO(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Jain, Mumbai

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

ITA 991/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymohit Jain, Ito(It)-3(1)(1), Vs. 24,Cci Chambers, Room No.1630, D.N Vachha Road, Air India Building, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan/Gir No. Afapj6477R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

Mahesh Vasant Ghare, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug. Mumbai

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

ITA 811/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshwalaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood & Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1612/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer & Also Before The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon Has Not Been Considered Properly.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 271A

confirmed the additional income so surrendered on behalf of the assessee firm. Thereafter, in the return filed in response to notice under section 142(1), the assessee firm has shown surrendered income of Rs. 1.75 crores and paid due taxes and interest thereon. 3.1 As per the AO, since

Madhav Infra Projects Ltd (Erstwhile Aashka Constructions P. Ltd.), Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 88/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Madhav Infra Projects Ltd., Dcit, (Erstwhile Aashka Circle-1(1)(1), Constructions Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad 4, Madhav House, Nr. Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Baroda, Gujarat Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024/26.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 23.12.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Confirming Action Of Ao Passing An Ex- Parte Order On An Entity That Ceased To Exist Pursuant To Order Of Amalgamation Passed By Hon'Ble High Court. The Order Passed On Non-Entity Is A Nullity & Void Ab Initio That Ought To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Madhav Infra Projects Ltd Vs. the Dy. CIT AY : 2009-10 143(2) on 26 September 2013, followed by a notice under Section 142(1) to the amalgamating company……” (emphasis mine) 7.6 Thus in both the cases of SPICE INFOTAINMENT and MARUTI SUZUKI, the appellants had before completion of assessment

Bollam Sampath Kumar Jewellers Private Limited, Warangal vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 265/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 265/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bollam Sampath Kumar Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Jewellers (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Warangal Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb4496H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 69A

ITA No 265 of 2024 Bollam Sampath Kumar Jewellers P Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX