“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)

Ravi Haldia, Haldia Multipoint House vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 64/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Board (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 260A

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

Chandrappa Nalina, Kadur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

In the result, this issue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 357/BANG/2024[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, M/S Chandrappa Nalina, Vs. Ward-1, 1 Harshitha Enterprises, Chikmagalur. U.B Road, Opp. To Water Tank, Kadur-577 548. Pan – Axdpn 2315 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department (DR)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

M/S. Samaja Seva Mandali, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-3Ward-, Bangalore

ITA 33/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri Shreeshkumar Eshwar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Yamuna C., D.R

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

selected for scrutiny assessment and was in receipt of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The notices were issued under section 142(1) of the Act on various dates calling for records which were duly submitted by the assessee. 3.1 The return of income of the assessee

Mr. Riyaz Ahmed, Chikamagalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalore

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

ITA 1130/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI

Rajlaxmi Satishkumar Sharma, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2013-14 Rajlaxmi Satishkumar

Nileshkumar Shantilal Patel, Fursadpura vs. ITO Ward 3, Nadiad

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

ITA 855/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 271ASection 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Nileshkumar Shantilal

M/S. Manohar Dealcom Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 634/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 634/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Manohar Dealcom Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – C/O Nigam Centre Vs 9(1), Kolkata 155, Lenin Sarani 1St Floor, Room No. 110 Kolkata- 700013 [Pan : Aafcm8273R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 29/04/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kolkata Who Had No Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee & As Such The Assessment Is Bad In Law. 2. For That Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3.86 Crore Made By The Ao U/S 69 In Respect Of Increase In Loans & Advances As Compared To Preceding Financial Year In Spite Of The Fact That The -Loans Were Duly Recorded In The Regular Books Of Account & Were Advanced Out Of Amount Received Against Sale Of Disclosed Investments.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

V.K.Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2614/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) V. K. Nanavaty Share & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) R. No. 647, 6Th Floor, Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs. R-709, Rotunda Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Bombay Stock Exchange, Maharishi Karve Road, M. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai- 400023. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv9670N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.05.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND MS PADMAVATHY S, AM

Yogesh Kotiyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 244ASection 270ASection 5(2)(a)Section 6(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

filed by the Assessee for F.Y. 2019-20. 11. The AO issued notices dated 25 October 2021 and 3 January 2022 under Section 142(1) and show cause notice dated 28 February 2022 of the Act to seek further details and information from the Assessee in connection with the revised ... filed by him. 6 Yogesh Kotiyal 12. In response to the notices issued under Section 143(2), Section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessee had filed the responses vide submission dated 13 July 2021, 8 November 2021 and 7 January 2022 along with documentation/ evidence in support

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Vadodara, Income Tax Department vs. Btw Atlanta Transformers India Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara

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

ITA 644/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘ बी ’, अहमदाबाद

Tejalben Samirkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 78/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 78/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Tejalben Samirkumar Shah, Principal Commissioner Of 10, Opera Society, Vs. Income Tax-1, Vibhag-2, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Askps2898E

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Karun K Ojha, CIT.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM

Prabhakar Reddy Sama, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 168/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144

year 2017-18 and on noticing that huge funds were credited to the account of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), but the assessee did not respond to the same and, therefore, learned Assessing Officer passed ex parte order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad vs. Sarap Veeresham, Ranga Reddy

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

ITA 649/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Mr T.Rajendra Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

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

Farooq Ali, Hyderabad vs. ITO., (Int - Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

ITA No 104 of 2023 and SA 59 of 2023 Farooq Ali TER WHAT HRT, seeTaTT AT IN THE INCOME

DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S D Gem Mount, Coimbatore

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

ITA 782/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.782/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. D. Gem Mount, Income Tax, No. 19, Vedapatti Road, Non-Corporate Circle 2, Aayakar Telungupalayam, Bhavan, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 039. Coimbatore 641 018. [Pan:Aaffd8890G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 32 Days, For Which, The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore Has Filed A Petition In The Form Of An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay Explaining The Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Prayed That 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 25.09.2018 was issued and duly served on the assessee for producing evidence/ informations. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 30.10.2019 requiring the assessee to furnish brief write ... hand, by filing copy of screenshot of responses filed by the assessee dated 19.11.2019 and 26.12.2019 in reply to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 30.10.2019, the ld. counsel 6 I.T.A. No. 782/Chny/23 for the assessee has submitted that complete details, as was required

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 248/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepk-9399-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.14/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.246/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. Cross Objection No.15/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.247/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 6. Cross Objection No.16/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.248/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj Dcit बनाम 70/33, G.S. North Street Central Circle-2(1), / Vs. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

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

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 247/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 246/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

Sakthee Murugan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp, Ircle-1, Chennai

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

ITA 1435/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1435/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saktheemurugan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 7/27, Kumaran Colony, 1St Street, Income Tax, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026. Non Corporate Circle 19(1), Chennai. [Pan:Bcjps1551C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2024

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 24.09.2018 and duly served on the assessee. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act calling for details along with annexure was issued on 07.05.2019 & 12.11.2019 and duly served on the assessee. Against the above notices

Arvind Kumar Nehra, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Jaipur

ITA 32/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain,AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 144Section 234A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक