← 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)

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1818/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B

Ametek Buildtech India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1317/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S PANNU, HON’BLE (President), SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: None
Section 133(6)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

Puppala Gopi Krishna, Guntur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

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

Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 194/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ib, Corporate House, Indamara, Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacca2881J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bikram Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2023 For A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax—Raipur-1 Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre (Neac) On 01.03.2021 As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As The Order Was Passed Without Making Any Enquiry On The Issues Of Applicability Of Section 14A Of The I. T. Act, 1961. The Assessment Order Passed By The Neac Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Therefore The Order U/S 263 Passed By The Ld. Cit Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Uncalled. 2. The Assessee Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801ASection 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद

Late Shri Motilal Hastimalji Bothra Through His L/H Smt. Bhanwari Devi, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2316/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

were initiated and notice dated 15/09/2014 under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 24/06/2015 calling for various Late Shri Motilal Hastimaji Bothra Through Legal Heir Smt. Bhanwari Devi ITA no.2316/Mum./2023 ... details. Further, notice under section 142(1) was also issued on 04/09/2015, 02/11/2015, 24/11/2015, and 22/01/2016. In the absence of any response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded to complete the best judgement assessment on the basis of material available on record. Vide order dated 24/02/2016 passed under

M/S. Cybele Paradise Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1329/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Cybele Paradise Pvt. Ltd. 111, Industrial Area, Sion Circle, Beside Croma Showroom, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 Pan: Aaccc7098K ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 6(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chaturvedi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jaipal Singh Sharma Trust, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2127/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

Shri Ankur Goei s recorded by the investigation wing, not to the knowledge of the appellant, but regretfully, the mandatory notice under section 142(1) of the Act is not served, the statement of the said third person never confronted to the appellant before using the same against the appellant

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jaipal Singh Sharma Trust, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2126/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

Shri Ankur Goei s recorded by the investigation wing, not to the knowledge of the appellant, but regretfully, the mandatory notice under section 142(1) of the Act is not served, the statement of the said third person never confronted to the appellant before using the same against the appellant

Ait, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Ankit Sharma, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2125/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

Shri Ankur Goei s recorded by the investigation wing, not to the knowledge of the appellant, but regretfully, the mandatory notice under section 142(1) of the Act is not served, the statement of the said third person never confronted to the appellant before using the same against the appellant

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Nidhi Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2124/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

Shri Ankur Goei s recorded by the investigation wing, not to the knowledge of the appellant, but regretfully, the mandatory notice under section 142(1) of the Act is not served, the statement of the said third person never confronted to the appellant before using the same against the appellant

Ankit Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1842/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

Shri Ankur Goei s recorded by the investigation wing, not to the knowledge of the appellant, but regretfully, the mandatory notice under section 142(1) of the Act is not served, the statement of the said third person never confronted to the appellant before using the same against the appellant

Shri Arun Agrawal, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 214/RPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 214/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Arun Agrawal 85, Pandri Textile Market, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan :Acjpa2323D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under section 142(1). f) Reliance is placed on the following judgements : (i) In the case of Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO, It is held by Hon'ble Delhi ... called in question by an assessee after expiry of one month from date of which he was served with a notice under section 142(1) or after completion of assessment, whichever was earlier." [2008] 166 Taxman 307 (Punjab & Haryana) (iv) In the case of Bal Chand Jain & Sons Vs. DCIT

M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 75/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.75/Rjt/2021 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Plot No.G-557, Vs. Of Income-Tax-1, Gidc Metoda, Rajkot. Kalawad Road, Metoda, Rajkot-360021. Pan: Aadcr1763P

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

framed the assessment under section 143(3) accepting the genuineness of such unsecured loans. This fact can be verified from the notice under section 142(1) of the Act by the AO and submission in reply of the assessee against such notice. i. Notice dated 04-07-2018: 11. Provide

The Surat Peoples Co Operative Bank Ltd., Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.278/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) The Surat People’S Co Operative Vs. The Pcit, Bank Ltd., Surat-1 1, Vasundhara Bhavan, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2885P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 43B

Counsel also stated that though the Assessing Officer has passed the order in brief, however the Assessing Officer has issued the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, and the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT regarding depreciation, GST and u/s 43B(f) of the Act, etc, have been

Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan, Silvassa vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 238/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Preetiben Chhatrasingh Chauhan Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Income S.No.127/1, Preeti Industrial, Vs. Estate, 66 Kva Road, Amli, Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Silvassa-396 230 Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abnpc 6043 R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

ACIT, CC- 30, New Delhi vs. J H Jewellers LLP, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 809/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi M/S. J H Jewellers Llp, 13, Sunder Nagar Market, Kasturba Vs. Nagar, South East, Delhi 110003 Pan Aacfj 3285 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Waseem Arshad, Cit(Dr) For Assessee: Shri U.N Marwah, Ca Shri Parveen Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 25.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Deleting The Rs.11,24,76,000/- Additions Of Rs. 32,50,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Of The It Act 1961. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case Considering That As Per The Balance Sheet Of These Companies As On 31.03.2016, The Said Fund Were Available In The Balance Sheet Of All The Four Companies Under The Head "Cash & Cash Equivalents" As On 31.03.2015 Which Are Now Reflected In Current Investment In I.E. Investment As Capital In The Appellant Firm As On31.03.2016. Further, Relying On The Submission Of The Assessee That The Said Four Companies Introduced Funds In The Ay 2008-09, The Case Of Maharaja Tie Up, Dynamic Enclave & Shivshakti Commercial Pt Ltd Were Assessed W/S 147 Of The Act For A.Y. 2008-09 Accepting The Share Capital/Share Premium.

For Appellant: Shri U.N Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH

The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd, Tapi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward2 Bardoli, Bardoli

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

ITA 470/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.470/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Vs At & Po Wanka, Taluka-Nizar, Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tapi-394370 Building, Opp. Jalaram Akshaymodi40@Gmail.Com Temple, Station Road, Pan No: Aahft 1009 K Bardoli-394601 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

status of assessee-co-operative society was accepted by Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) on 19.02.2017 to assessee to file its return of income for assessment year 2017-18. The notice under section 142(1) was issued against ... application for cancellation of its old PAN, copy of such application and affidavit of Secretary are placed on record. Since notice under section 142(1) was issued against old PAN in the status of “partnership firm”, the ITBA portal of Department was not accepting its return of income

Parvindar Singh, Jabalpur vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

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

ITA 114/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleparvindar Singh, Vs. Acit, Circle 2(1), 526, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur-48200, Jabalpur-482001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Asaps9672A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Shiv Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Dhiraj Ghai.FCA.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shiv Kumar.DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Aameen Belim, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Jodhpur

In the result, the ground no

ITA 571/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 124(3)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Divya Prakash, Bhojpur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 24/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 80C

paper book and submitted that ld. Assessing Officer has issued specific show-cause notice not only under section 143(2) but under section 142(1) also. The assessee has fully complied with those notices. It was further contended that the assessee was holding a liquor licence at that time