← 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)

Smt. Raju Bai, Village Rajoda, Dewas vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dewas

Appeal is allowed

ITA 336/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2017-18 Smt. Raju Bai, Ito, Ward 1, 209, Village Rajoda, Dewas बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cfipr7269M Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2024

Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

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

Mukta Ganpat Karnale, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22 (1), Mumbai

ITA 2812/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2812/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mukta Ganpat Karnale A-701, Deepjyot Chs Ltd., Opp. Orbit Tower, S.L. Matkar Marg, Elphiston Road, Mumbai- 400025 Pan: Ajlpk3849B Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By Revenue/Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22(1), Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Respondent) Mr. Mahendra Pasthe, Ca Shri Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr 25.01.2024 02.02.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: This Appeal Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals, / National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short 'The Cit(A)'] Dated 20.06.2023 For

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270Section 46ASection 48

case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under section 142(1) subsequently on 19.01.2021 and 24.03.2021. The assessee did not respond to the notices issued and therefore the AO concluded the assessment by denying the deduction

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), International Taxation, Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. Tata Communication (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 865/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos.864, 865/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Tata Communications (Uk) Ltd., Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Bengaluru. Street London Ec4V3Bj, United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.2, 3/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 864, 865/Bang/2023) Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 M/S. Tata Communictions (Uk) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Street London Ec4V3Bj, Bengaluru. United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Department & Cross- Objections (Co) By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

issued notice under section 148 of the Act for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. In response to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, some were responded to by assessee. However, since IT(IT)A Nos.864, 865/Bang/2023 C.O. Nos.2, 3/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 5 assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), International Taxation, Bengaluru vs. Tata Communication (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 864/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos.864, 865/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Tata Communications (Uk) Ltd., Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Bengaluru. Street London Ec4V3Bj, United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.2, 3/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 864, 865/Bang/2023) Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 M/S. Tata Communictions (Uk) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames, Circle -2(2), International Taxation, Street London Ec4V3Bj, Bengaluru. United Kingdom - 999999. Pan : Aahct 0782 C Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Department & Cross- Objections (Co) By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

issued notice under section 148 of the Act for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. In response to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, some were responded to by assessee. However, since IT(IT)A Nos.864, 865/Bang/2023 C.O. Nos.2, 3/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 5 assessee

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayers Unit, Bangalore

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

M/S Siddharth Diagold Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 171/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

there is no basis for levy of penalty in respect of these two notices. 5.4 Regarding the 4th notice dt. 03/09/2019 issued under section 142(1) of the Act, it was submitted that in the said notice, the assessee was called upon to furnish certain information / documentation ... accordingly submitted that there was no fault on the part of the assessee for not to comply with the notice under section 142(1) and the same was complied with in as much as the adjournment was sought for the reasons which were beyond the control of the assessee

Prakash Amarlal Doulatani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 970/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 970/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Prakash Amarlal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ward -3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Doulatani Vs. 16/318, Satyagrah Chhavni, Near Bhavnirjar, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaspd3727B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Vihar Soni, A.R. Assessee By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 30/01/2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/01/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Arising Out Of The Order Dated 22.11.2018 Passed By The Ito, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12, Whereby & Wherunder The Addition Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of ‘On Money’ Has Been Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2018 upon obtaining approval from the PCIT-3, Ahmedabad. Further that, the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 10.08.2018 directing the appellant to submit certain details and/or information. In response to the same, the appellant filed ... online reply and submitted the copy of income tax return and computation of income. A further notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 25.10.2018 was issued asking for explanation for source of investment in property whereupon the assessee by filing letter dated 06.11.2018 explained the issue raised

Shripal Sheshmal Jain, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Shripal Sheshmal Jain Huf, Income Tax Officer, Vs A-6, Maskati Market, Ward-1(2)(4), Sakar Bazar, Ahmedabad-380002 Ahmedabad Pan : Aahhs 7762 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Aashish Rajesh Revar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aashish Rajesh Revar, Sr DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD \ BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13

Soham Buildcon (Partnership Firm), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 105/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Ms. Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

neither anywhere stated by the assessee. The learned PCIT also found that there were several questions raised in the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act which were not replied/explained by the assessee, but the AO did not bother to examine the same. 5. Thus, the learned PCIT

Bipin Anandrao Thorat, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Pune

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

ITA 1318/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA

Kodandaram Nadavati, Nellore vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Nellore

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

ITA 637/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.637/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Shri Kodandaram Nadavati Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Nellore Circle 1 Pan:Afupn9767N Nellore (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.63,48,500/-To The Total Income Of The Assessee By Not Condoning The Delay Of 138 Days In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

ITA No 637 of 2023 Kodandaram Nadavati आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad, Ramachandrapuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 280/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.280/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop-03, Ramachandra Puram Ward-1 Ramachandrapuram Mandal Kakinada East Godavari [Pan : Akqpv2779M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yashwanth (staff of ShriFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य

Sobha Devi Dilipkumar, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 108/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Sobha Devi Dilipkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-2(1), Pan: Abypd 3389 E Vijayawada. (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 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

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

Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pairagacha vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 669/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

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

Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pairagacha vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 668/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

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

Rising Retails(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1005/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 197(1)Section 250Section 40a

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Radesh Chand Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Jaipur

ITA 807/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

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

B S Chandra Sekhadic and Samaj Sewa Samiti, Sewar District Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Alwar

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

ITA 764/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

## आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"SMC" JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक

Yatish Kumar Kempanna, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1085/BANG/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Yatish Kumar Kempanna, The Income Tax No. 41, Shanti Nivas, Officer, 8Th Cross, Agrahara, Ward – 6(2)(1), Dasarahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 079. Vs. Pan: Bdzpk4431J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Chowdary, CA
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 69A

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

Shri. B.L. Nagendra Prasad, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1045/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

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