← 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)

Sh. Gagan Suri, Panchkula vs. ACIT, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in terms of above directions

ITA 311/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 27Section 28Section 68

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

M/S V-Con Integrated Solutions Private Limited, Mohali vs. The PCIT, Chandigarh-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 232/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 232/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Pcit, Plot F-141, Phase-8B, Mohali, Chandigarh-1. Rupnagar. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aabci9928H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80J

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B” CHANDIGARH

Halmira Estate Tea Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

ITA 382/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 382/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Halmira Estate Tea Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of 23, Pankaj Mullick Sarani Vs Income Tax (2), Kolkata Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata - 700019 [Pan : Aaach6210N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Bhide, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 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 Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 10/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts Of The Case The Order Passed By Pcit(2) Kolkata On 10.06.2020 U/S Of The Act, Is Bad In Law. 2. That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer On 10.11.2017 U/S. 143(3) After Due Consideration Of Documents Submitted By The Appellant Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue & Therefore The Order Appealed Against Be Cancelled.”

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

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

Ramasamy Kandasamy, Salem vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(6), Salem

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

ITA 1578/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1578/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Income Tax Officer, Proprietor Traffic Fashions, V. Ward -1(6), 337, Ii Cross, Salem. Thirupathy Nagar, Alagapuram, Periyapudur, Tamil Nadu – 636 016. [Pan: Aoupk-1878-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. R. Srikrishna, Ca : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. S. R. Srikrishna, CA
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी (SMC)’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B(SMC)’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मंजुनाथा. जी

Hansika Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 766/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

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

Varsha Ratan Bhalwankar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3645/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

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

Ranjan Suresh Ghia, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(3) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 3575/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Sajal SaravariyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 249(2)Section 250Section 69

void ab initio. iii. Without prejudice to the above, Learned AO erred, on facts and in law in serving the notice under section 142(1) of the by affixture on the address which was not correct. iv. Without prejudice to the above, Learned AO erred, on facts

Srinathji Yamunaji Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2597/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Bharat RaichandaniFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 143Section 250Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Prithvi Raj Mongia, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-1, Hisar

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

ITA 2787/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Prithvi Raj Mongia, Vs Ito, House No.30, Eight Marla Colony, Ward-1, Patel Nagar, Hisar, Hisar. Haryana-125001. Pan-Abzpm9541Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Kuldip Khera, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”) Dated 29.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2013

Kalpana Goswami, Bhopal vs. I.T.O. 1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 324/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Kalpana Goswami, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.955, Banganga, 1(1), बनाम/ North T.T.Nagar, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Awgpg5729E Assessee By Shri Milind Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

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

Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited, Opp Churchgate Station vs. CIT(A), North Block

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2824/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2824/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Ltd. 4Th Floor, Industrial Assurance Building, Charchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacj-1166-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Cit(A), North Block, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 22/06/2023, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Three Grounds. The Gist Of Issues Raised In Appeal By The Assessee Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.A.R
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ए ”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit Circle – 3(3)(1), R. No. 609, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. Small Industries Development Bank Of India Sme Development Centre, C-11, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aabcs3480N ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ld. AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

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

Sh. Kartik Budhiraja, Fazilka vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 250(6)

notice, the assessee filed its return of income on 06/03/2021 and declaring net taxable income of Rs. 2,16,780/-. Subsequently, notice under section 142 (1) dt. 09/02/2021 alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee electronically and also notice under section 1432(2) was issued and served ... return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2015-16. The show cause notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee asking why the amount of cash loan advanced amounting to Rs. 1,95,000/- should not be considered

Sh. Kartik Budhiraja, Fazilka vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 527/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 250(6)

notice, the assessee filed its return of income on 06/03/2021 and declaring net taxable income of Rs. 2,16,780/-. Subsequently, notice under section 142 (1) dt. 09/02/2021 alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee electronically and also notice under section 1432(2) was issued and served ... return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2015-16. The show cause notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee asking why the amount of cash loan advanced amounting to Rs. 1,95,000/- should not be considered

Sh. Kartik Budhiraja, Fazilka vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 526/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 250(6)

notice, the assessee filed its return of income on 06/03/2021 and declaring net taxable income of Rs. 2,16,780/-. Subsequently, notice under section 142 (1) dt. 09/02/2021 alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee electronically and also notice under section 1432(2) was issued and served ... return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2015-16. The show cause notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee asking why the amount of cash loan advanced amounting to Rs. 1,95,000/- should not be considered

Ropar District Co-Operative Union Limited, Mohali vs. PCIT, Chandigar-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 360/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AAKASH DEEPJAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 269USection 53A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Rohtak Hissar Tollway Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 372/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Hyderabad Yadgiri Tollway Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT -1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 371/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Dhirubhai Mohanbhai Patel, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Dhirubhai Mohanbhai Patel, Huf Income-Tax-3, 16, Vikram Plotting, Nr. Bajarang Vs. Ahmedabad Ashram, Thakkarbapa Nagar, Bapunagar-382350 Pan : Aaghd 1362 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit” In Short] Dated 10.03.2022, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short], For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Order Passed By The Pcit Is Bad In Law & Required To Be Quashed. 2. Ld. Pcit Erred In Law & On Facts In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Ignoring Fact That Issue Raised In Show Cause Notice U/S 263 Of The Act Has Been Properly Verified By Ao During Scrutiny Assessment Proceedings. 3. Ld. Pcit Erred In Law & On Facts In Proceedings With Revision Jurisdiction Ignoring Fact That Order Passed By Ao Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA