← 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)

Sandeep Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 43(8), New Delhi

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

ITA 3033/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 43(8) 311, Deepali Chowk, New Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. Pan Agbpg9204H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 44ASection 69A

issued on 09.08.2018 which was served upon the assessee from ITBA and e-mail. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 21.06.2019. In response thereto, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) did not receive any reply. The Ld. AO issued notices under section 142(1) dated

Sampark Management Cousultancy LLP, Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Sampark Management Vs. Pr.Cit, Noida, Consultancy Llp, Noida. A-178, Sector – 40, Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301. Pan Acsfs9969E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

ITA No. 1879/Del/2023 Sampark Management Consultancy vs. Pr.CIT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. BRR

Mohammed Badsha Laskar, Secunderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 89/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.89/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Mohd.Badsha Laskar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Secunderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan: Acqpl8311F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.DR
Section 132ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

ITA No 89 of 2024 Mohd Badsha Laskar आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Revathi Bobbarada, Chittor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Tirupati

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

ITA 601/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 Revathi Bobbarada, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Chittor, Ward – 1(3), Andhra Pradesh. Tirupati, Pan : Aivpb1809P. Andhra Pradesh. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Sai Prasad, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Sai Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.A.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

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

M/S Prudential Management Advisors Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 719/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 719/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Prudential Management Assistant Commissioner Of Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Suite No. 10, 5Th Floor Shantiniketan Building 8, Camac Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaecp2505Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 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. 24/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) To Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.6,34,50,000/- On Account Of Loss On Sale Of Investments Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.25,33,00,386/- On Account Of Sundry Creditors U/S 41(1) Of The Act Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 41(1)

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

Prity Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Iti, Ward-2(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

A.Raghuram, Valsarawakkam vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 373/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.373/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 A. Raghuram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 20, 3/1A, West Kamakoti Nagar, Income Tax, Agastyar Street, Valasarawakkam, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpa2155P] (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 : 04.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 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)-18, Chennai, Dated 08.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Initiated & Conducted In This Assessee’S Case On 31.10.2013. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 16.04.2015, Admitting Total Income Of ₹.2,03,67,310/-. The Case Was 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

1) of the Act. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 15.07.2015. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was also issued to the assessee on 15.07.2015. After considering the statement recorded under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Rajapalayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 1197/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1197/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 54/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 1197/Chny/2023] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Income Tax, 7/84, Pound Street, Chokkanathaputhur, Central Circle 2, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, Madurai. Tamil Nadu 626 121. [Pan:Aaxpk1318E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkataraman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 31.08.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 01.11.2017 Admitting A Total

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 68

scrutiny under CASS. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 17.08.2018 was issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 04.10.2019, 02.12.2019 & 05.12.2019 calling for details. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain ... furnish the labour attendance register, bills vouchers, pay register, etc. Since the assessee has not complied with all the terms of notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 04.10.2019, 05.12.2019 and letter dated 23.10.2019, by rejecting the profit and loss account under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Ms Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CA
Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

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

M/S. Tirumala Teleworld, Hubbali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Hubballi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 209/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, BENGALURU BENCH BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

Shweta Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 33(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3528/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 250Section 54F

Rs.2,97,290. 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 computation of income, it was observed

Reena Rakesh Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2184/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Reena Rakesh Kothari Income Tax Officer 28-A, Kamgar Nagar, Ward 26(2)(5), S.G. Barve Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Kurla (East), Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahlpk7422J Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 10Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

objected to the reopening by filing a letter dated 16/2/2017 which was disposed of by speaking order on 3/3/2017.Therefore, once again notice under section 142 (1) was issued on 20/7/2017 and assessee was asked to furnish the details. In the return of income, it was found that the assessee ... assessing officer could not have issued the notice under section 148 of the act when the time limit for issuing the notice under section 142 (1) and the time limit for filing of the belated return was available with the assessee. Assessee pressed into service several judicial precedents. The assessee

Quality Apparel Exporters Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 487/MUM/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranit TannaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 250

assessee on 31/12/1999. Accordingly, the case of 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. Since the assessee failed to respond to various notices issued during the assessment proceedings ... present appeal, pursuant to the directions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, notice under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee to grant opportunity of hearing. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee requested the AO to provide

Quality Apparel Exporters Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 486/MUM/2020[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranit TannaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 250

assessee on 31/12/1999. Accordingly, the case of 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. Since the assessee failed to respond to various notices issued during the assessment proceedings ... present appeal, pursuant to the directions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, notice under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee to grant opportunity of hearing. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee requested the AO to provide

Motabhai Alibhai and Sons, Viramgam, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes, as we set aside the orders of the AO as well as ld

ITA 808/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18 Motabhai Alibhai & Sons, Ito, 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Lokhand Bazar, Viramgam, V. Ahmedabad, Gujarat Ahmedabad-382150, Gujarat Pan:Aaefm1116D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Prakash D. Shah, Ar & Sh. Samit L Jain & Sh. Saiyam, Ars Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2024 (Signed By The Jm On 20.03.2024)

For Appellant: Sh. Prakash D. Shah, AR & Sh. Samit L Jain, &For Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA

Rajesh Hariram Mohta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1125/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Rajesh Hariram Mohta, Income-Tax Officer, 45, Jay Nagar Society, Ward-6(1)(1), B/H. Sardar Patel Hospital, Ahmedabad Rambaug, Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008 Pan : Abopm 4792 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah & Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, Ars Revenue By : Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 03.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.29,55,000/- Being Cash Deposited In The Bank Account Under Section 69A Inasmuch As The Cash Deposited Is Out Of Cash On Hand [Which Is Out Of Cash Sales & Cash Withdrawn] From The Business & That The Entire Amount Is From Explained Sources.” Rajesh Hariram Mohta Vs. Ito Ay : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah &For Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

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

Vijaybhai Laxmichand Demla L/H of Late Shri Laxmichand Pahlumal Demla, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1109/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 159Section 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Javed Abdul Gafur Naik, Kudal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Kudal, Kudal

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

ITA 56/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatiya
Section 115BSection 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “एक सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual

Mr Sudhakar Digamber Gond, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Laturr, Latur

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

ITA 55/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvnesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एक सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual

Arav Telecom, Pimpri, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(5), Akurdi

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

ITA 1055/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE