← 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)

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5363/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us.

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14A

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 25/04/2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C

Amrik Singh, Jhauni Purva, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi, Income Tax Office Nagheta Road

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

ITA 329/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Amrik Singh, Vs. Ito-3(2), Jhauni Purva, Hardoi, Income Tax Office, Hardoi Nagheta Road, Pan: Darps 0109A Hardoi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sanjay Saxena, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/02/2024

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18

Nabros Transport Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 559/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B

CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 04.07.2017 which was duly served upon the assessee. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire was issued on 20.07.2018. In response to the notices, the assessee filed submissions along with the details

Gayatri Jaju, Nizamabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nizamabad

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

ITA 44/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Rander &For Respondent: Shri SPG. Mudaliar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 69A

Assessing Officer treated the said return as invalid return, since the same was not filed within the time allowed as per notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to substantiate the credits to the tune ... Onkarlal Kachoria vs. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 476 (Jodh.), learned AR submitted that the return filed pursuant to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, before the conclusion of the assessment proceedings can be accepted and acted upon. Developing on this line, he argued that when once

Prakash Lal Potluri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, (Int Taxn)-2, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 567/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Prakash Lal Potluri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad. Pan : Gnkpp1085B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sri M. Vijay Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.02.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri M. Vijay Kumar – CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 148Section 48

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

The Farmers Service Co-Op Ltd., Ranasthalam vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 310/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.310/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21) The Farmers Service Co-Op. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ranasthalam, Ward-1, Srikakulam-532407. Srikakulam. Pan: Aabtt 4377 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम SMC पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर

Income Tax Office, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada vs. Harinadh Ananthaneni, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 168/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Harinadh Ananthaneni, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Ainpa 3860 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 28/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 168/Viz/2023) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ananthaneni Harinadh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolavenu Village, Ward-2(3), Krishna District. Vijayawada. Pan: Ainpa 3860 B (""यथ"/ Respondent) (Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

Nano Infra Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 290/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश

Bharat Jaroli, Neemuch vs. Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 753/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bharat Jaroli, Pr. Cit, B.No. 45, 1, Kila Road, Ujjain बनाम/ Mahaveer Bagh, Vs. Neemuch (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aanpj5994K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

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

Sandeep Kherada, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 610/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam (CIT)(V.H)
Section 131Section 144

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

Aditya Birla Private Equity Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai)

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Bleand

Section 1Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Crystal City Mall Private Limited, Santacruz (West), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12 (1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3867/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3867/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Crystal City Mall Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National E-Assessment 2Nd Floor, Crystal Shopping Centre, Delhi Vs. Arcade, Opp. Indian Bank, Ito, Ward-12(1)(1) S. V. Road, Santacruz Aayakar Bavan, Mumbai- (West), Mumbai-400054. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcc4943J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 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 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order; & He Also Pointed Out That The Ao Has Passed The Order U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) I.E. Best Judgment Assessment. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Was Unable To Attend Before The Ao Inter-Alia On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic & For The Following Reasons As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Vibha Subhash Singh, Kharghar vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 3740/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhvibha Subhash Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer- 1601 Viswahans, Sector Nfac, Ward 2(2) 35D, Near Bank Of India, Mohan Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Kharghar – 410210 Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan (W), Kalyan - 421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Apsps5258R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajeev Waglay Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 07.08.2023 For A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 24,97,500 U/S. 69 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Appellant Had Neither Tendered The Income Tax Return Nor The Details Of Investment As Stated By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Had Filed The Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S. 148 On 21.9.2021 Under Acknowledgment No. 550248700210921 & That This Return Was Very Much Available On Income Tax Portal. Ii. Confirming The Above Addition Without Appreciating The Fact That When The Appellant Had Invested Of Rs. 14,00,000 Only In The Property, Higher Value Could Not Have Been Attributed To The Appellant Without Any Basis.

For Appellant: Rajeev WaglayFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

P a g e | 1 Vibha Subhash Singh Vs. ITO, NFAC, Ward 2(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Vasdev, Sangrur vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 422/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Anand, Advocate and Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR for Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT,DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

response to the notice under section 148, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) on 05/07/2019 wherein the assessee was asked to prepare a true and correct return of income. Again, there was no compliance on the part ... assessee. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) alongwith questionnaire were issued on 11/10/2019 and in response to that, the assessee filed his submissions which were taken into consideration but not found acceptable by the AO. As per the AO, it is not possible to ascertain the correct business result

Gopinath Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 760/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-3

Section 143(2)Section 68

notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 12.09.013 and was served upon the assessee. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 12.09.2013 and 23.09.2014. In response to the same notices, the Ld. AR of the assessee attended the assessment

Suryakant Baburao Swami, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

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

ITA 844/PUN/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Suryakant Baburao Swami, Ito, Ward-1(5), Behind Jhulelal Temple Naryan Income Tax Bhavan, Near Nagar, Latur-413-512. Vs. Railway Station, Gandhi Chowk, Nanded Road, Latur-431512 Pan No. Bynps 1468 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Kalpesh Rupavatiya (Through
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC” PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Satya Venkata Chaitanya Mandala, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 597/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. A.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Satya Venkata Chaitanya Mandala, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 593/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. A.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Rajeswari Konduri, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 563/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Rajeswari Konduri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. R/O. Plot No.23, Hacp Colony, Near Kharkhana, Secunderabad, Telangana – 500056. Pan : Aaypk8689B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Abhiroop Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Myneni Suresh, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.316/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19) Myneni Suresh, Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam. (International Taxation), Pan: Eklpm 9295 J Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 35ASection 4

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम SMC पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर