← 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)

The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Patiala

ITA 687/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

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

Sh. Aman Seth, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 1318/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36Section 44A

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

Sainik Seva Services, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is deleted. The appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 286/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sainik Seva Services The Dy. Cit 132, Ft. Ring Road Vs Circle-3(1)(1) Near Ashwamegh Bungalows Ahmedabad-380 014 Iocl Petrol Pump, Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) Pan: Acafs 8028 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

details of cash sales, cash received from debtors, and cash deposited in bank accounts were provided in response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act for the year under appeal as well as for the immediately preceding assessment year. 5.1. The assessee further contended that the demonetized

Sushil Balasaheb Gondhale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2), Pune

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

ITA 454/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.454/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sushil Balasaheb Gondhale, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), Pune. 49/3, Triveni Nagar Housing Society, Opp. Vaibhav Theatre, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Asppg5370A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Deciding The Issue Only On The Basis Of Material Available With Them, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Atul Ashok Parakh, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 2/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 453/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Ray, Advocate, Shri S. N. Patra & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

M/S. Ganan Mercantile Private Limited., Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 931/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 35A

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

Kattappana Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Idukki vs. The Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 706/COCH/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Soundararajan K., Judicial

Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Indore

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

ITA 258/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Indiyaa Distribution Dy. Cit, Network Llp, 1(1), 11D, Sampat Farm, Indore. Opp.Agrawal Public बनाम/ School, Vs. Bicholi Mardana Road, Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aarfg1302N Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

M/S Empee Distilleries Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Pcit, 72, Greams Road, Chennai. Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aaace 1687 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri M.Karunakaran, Adv. : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

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

Shreeya Shirish Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO, Income Tax

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 88/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. A P Sinha
Section 115B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Shreeya Shirish Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 85/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. A P Sinha
Section 115B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Shreeya Shirish Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO, Income Tax

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 83/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. A P Sinha
Section 115B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Rajesh Govind Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 269/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

Vishwesh Venkatraman, Norway and Uk vs. ITO (It) 4(3)(1), Air India Building Mumbai

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

ITA 1515/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: S/Shri Harshavardhana Datar / Amit NegandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 151Section 234CSection 3Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI Before Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Accountant Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iifl Home Finance Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 4 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1297/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43BSection 43DSection 69CSection 80M

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Shirin Razzak Zariwala, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Thane

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

ITA 4604/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shirin Razzak Zariwala Ito, Ward-3(3) B/603, 6Th Floor, Diamond Park, Ashar, I T Park, Wagale Industrial Khadi Machine Road, Kausa, Estate, Thane (W), Vs. Opp. Rehmaniya Hospital, Thane-400 604 Mumbra, Thane-400 612

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

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