← 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)

G.S. Dream Home LLP, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 24/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Mahavir Prasad Jat, Jaipur vs. ITO WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 662/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Maharwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC ” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

DCIT, CC-06, New Delhi vs. Jadyn Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Goa

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 943/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. Jadyn Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-06, Ave Miriam Pirni Nagao New Delhi Salcete Vena, South Goa, Panaji, Goa (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcj9920E

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

Sterling Associates, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2105/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 2105/Del/2019, (A.Y. 2015-16) Sterling Associates, Vs. Acit Plot No. 32, Sector-18, Circle 4(1) Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Abifs6373H Appellant Respondent

Section 143

1 M/s Sterling Associates Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHAMIM

Ramnath Buildhome, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 746/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

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

Sh. Badaluram, Fauladpur, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Behror, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

explicitly specified therein. However, the assessee failed to file the requisite return within the aforementioned time. 4 Badalurma vs. ITO Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 27.10.2021 calling the assessee to give details in respect of which the assessee is assessable under

Late Sh. Birdi Chand Through Legal Heir Mukesh Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 54F

legal representatives of the deceased is mandatory, in the absence of which the proceedings cannot be continued by issuance of notices under section 142(1) of the Act against the heirs. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this court in Rasid Lala v. Income Tax Officer, Ward ... other legal representatives. Scrutiny assessment came to be carried out by the Income Tax Officer, during the course of which, notices under section 142(1) of the Act came to be issued to Jai Prakash to appear and produce documents, accounts and other material, who complied with the same

Maddikunta Sanjeeva Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Maddikunta Sanjeeva Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ward – 1, Hno11-222/1, Sangareddy. Shanthinagar Colony, Patancheru, Hyderabad – 502319, Telangana. Pan : Eiyps0245H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kali Kiran Kumar Kovvada, Ca. Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Kali Kiran Kumar KovvadaFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.AR
Section 147

beneficiary to the transaction. I would also like to bring to your attention that the order specified that a notice under section 142(1) dated 06/09/2021 has been served along with the show cause notice under section 144, however the notice u/s 142(1) is not reflected on the portal

Jyoti Rakesh Roongta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(5), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 143/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jyoti Rakesh Roongta,…………………………….Appellant Suite-F, 4Th Floor, Mission Court, 25, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Adjpr8090H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-43(5), Kolkata, 3, Government Place, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 10(38)(b)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 50C

conducted in cavalier manner without application of mind and looking into facts and evidences on records”. “9. In response to the notice under section 142(1) for show cause dated 20.12.2019 the appellant again submitted on 21.12.2019 that no shares was sold by the assessee during the period under review

Shri Raghvendra Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2416/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68Section 69CSection 94(7)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Ubmc Trust Association, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 694/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

where a return of income is filed under section 139(1) or in response to notice issued under section 142(1), is 6 months from the end of the financial year in which such return of income is filed. In the present facts of the case, the return of income ... original assessment proceedings were pending as the time period for issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) did not expire. In our view, section 142(1) and section 148 of the act cannot operate simultaneously. Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Qatalys Software Technologies (supra) has held that

Ubmc Trust Association, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 693/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

where a return of income is filed under section 139(1) or in response to notice issued under section 142(1), is 6 months from the end of the financial year in which such return of income is filed. In the present facts of the case, the return of income ... original assessment proceedings were pending as the time period for issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) did not expire. In our view, section 142(1) and section 148 of the act cannot operate simultaneously. Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Qatalys Software Technologies (supra) has held that

Sunil Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3314/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Sunil Kapoor, Vs. Acit K-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Circle Intt. New Delhi-110 024 Taxation 2(1)(2) Pan Aoips5698J New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Tyagi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

issued on 28.06.2022 through ITBA portal electronically which was duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently three notices under section 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued electronically to which the assessee responded by submitting replies from time to time. 3 4. The Ld. AO found from the ITR that

Dlf Urban Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle, 7(1), New Delhi

ITA 1962/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs Dlf Urban Pvt. Ltd., Circle 7(1), 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015 Pan: Aafcd3019C Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dlf Urban Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 15, Shivaji Marg, Circle 7(1), New Delhi – 110 015 New Delhi. Pan: Aafcd3019C (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Shri Satyajeet Goel & Shri Rajat Garg, Cas. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.06.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri R.S. SinghviFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Ambereen Islam., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir- 40, Kolkata.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1222/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Radha Diamonds, Erode vs. ITO, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 729/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.729/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radha Diamonds, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 371, Nethaji Road, Circle 1, Erode. Erode 638 001, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaifr0066K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1, Coimbatore, Dated 23.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21.08.2018 and the same was duly served. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 29.05.2019 along with questionnaire. Further, a detailed show cause notice dated 28.11.2019 was also issued to the assessee

DCIT Central Circle2(4), Chennai vs. Shri O. Panneerselvam, Chennai

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

ITA 582/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nanda Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

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

DCIT Central Circle2(4), Chennai vs. Shri O. Panneerselvam, Chennai

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

ITA 581/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nanda Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

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

Ramaswamy Akilandeswari, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 15(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1571/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1571/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramaswamy Akilandeswari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 16, New No. 35, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Ganapathy Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Aibpa6254B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 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 27.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 28.03.2018 Admitting Income Of ₹.5,00,620/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Cass. The Assessing Officer Issued Statutory Notices Followed By 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 69A

were duly served on the assessee. There were no compliances on part of the assessee to such notices. Thereafter, one more notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee on 17.09.2019. In response ... notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 17.09.2019, the assessee furnished VAT returns, bank statements, financial statements etc. After considering the assessee's submissions, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted his reply before

K.P. Construction, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 437/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153D

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय