← 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)

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 397/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed to comply notice under Section 142(1) dated 02/12/2020 and 17.12.2020 for A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 23.02.2021 asking ... assessee as to why penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notices under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, for non- compliance of notices dated 02.12.2022 and 17.12.2020 under

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 396/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed to comply notice under Section 142(1) dated 02/12/2020 and 17.12.2020 for A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 23.02.2021 asking ... assessee as to why penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notices under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, for non- compliance of notices dated 02.12.2022 and 17.12.2020 under

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 395/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed to comply notice under Section 142(1) dated 02/12/2020 and 17.12.2020 for A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 23.02.2021 asking ... assessee as to why penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notices under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, for non- compliance of notices dated 02.12.2022 and 17.12.2020 under

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 394/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed to comply notice under Section 142(1) dated 02/12/2020 and 17.12.2020 for A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 23.02.2021 asking ... assessee as to why penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notices under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, for non- compliance of notices dated 02.12.2022 and 17.12.2020 under

Hansaben Maganbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 393/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398 & 399/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hansaben Maganbhai D.C.I.T., Vaghasiya, Central Circle-2, Vs. 174, Shree Gadhpur Surat. Township, Pasodara Gam, Ta- Kamrej, Surat-395206 Pan No. Adypv 3826 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessing officer while passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) recorded that the assessee failed to comply notice under Section 142(1) dated 02/12/2020 and 17.12.2020 for A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 23.02.2021 asking ... assessee as to why penalty be not levied for non-compliance of notices under Section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, for non- compliance of notices dated 02.12.2022 and 17.12.2020 under

Navinchandra K. Patel, Surat vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.57/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Navinchandra K. Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. 5, Kaaliytawadi Faliya, At Post Saniya Hemad, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birpp6292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 31.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act Setting Aside The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 24.11.2017 For The Year Under Consideration Although Said Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous On The Ground That Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Of Property Is Under Assessed By Rs.2,12,58,035/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Further, ld Counsel submitted that during the assessment stage, the assessing officer, by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act, has asked relevant questions and assessee has replied them. After verification of relevant documents and evidences, the assessing officer has taken ... which is placed at paper book page nos. 15 to 17. The assessee also submitted the notice issued under section 142(1) by Assessing Officer dated 20.11.2017 which is placed at paper book page no.20 wherein the Assessing Officer asked the question about the confirmation of weight of sugar cane

Mrs. Dixaben Jayeshbhai Patel, Vapi vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vapi

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 229/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.228 & 229/Srt/2020 Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Dixaben Jayeshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, Plot No.42, Krishna Colony, Vapi. Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahspp3273F (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 44A

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

Mrs. Daxaben Jayeshbhaipatel, Vapi vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vapi

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 228/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.228 & 229/Srt/2020 Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Dixaben Jayeshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, Plot No.42, Krishna Colony, Vapi. Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahspp3273F (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 44A

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

Shivam Residential Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., Valsad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 396/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shivam Residential Construction Principal Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Civil Income-Tax-Valsad, Palak Vs. Hospital Road, Nanakwada, Valsad Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs 3137 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

appeal before us. 11. Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset fairly admitted that assessing officer has not issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, during the assessment proceedings, to examine the four issues identified by ld PCIT in his order under section ... which is placed at page-3 of the paper book and the same is reproduced below: No.DCIT/VLS/Cir./142(1)/2014-15 Date: 18.09.2014 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 PAN No:AAPCS 31137G To M/S SHIVAM RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED PLOT ASHREETHAKORJI NAGAR ITA No.396/SRT/2018 A.Y.13-14 Shivam

Janata Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 83/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Janata Janata Enterprises, Enterprises, Plot Plot Vs. Pr. Cit-1, No.57, No.57, Janapath, Janapath, Ashok Ashok Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Nagar, Unit Unit-Ii, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaafj 6599 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 9/02 2/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 9/02 2/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Purnendu Bhusan MohantyFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH

Mamata Devi Chopra, Prop- M.M.Trading Co., Cuttack vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 82/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Mamata Devi Chopra, Prop. Mamata Devi Chopra, Prop. Vs. Pr. Cit-1, M.M.Trading Co. Town Hall M.M.Trading Co. Town Hall Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Road, Cuttack Road, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaopc 5213 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod Kumar Jesty, Ar Pramod Kumar Jesty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 9/02 2/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 9/02 2/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr. Cit Passed U/S.263 Of Cit Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 25.3.2022 25.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041530059(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. Shri Pramod Kumar Jesty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Pramod Kumar Jesty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Pramod Kumar Jesty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Jesty, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH

Bishandayal Inderchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. Asst.CIT (Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 193/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Feb 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य

Bishandayal Inderchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. Asst.CIT (Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 192/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Feb 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य

Alpha Pacific Engineers Private Limited, Noida vs. Pr.CIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Ms. Supriya Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri P Praveen, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(va)

1 Alpha Pacific Engineers P. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP

Valvoline Cummins Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Special Range-9, New Delhi

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

ITA 2035/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

1 Valvoline Cummins Pvt.Ltd. Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : “F” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B

Shri Nitin Bothra, Indore vs. He PCIT -1 Indore, Indore

ITA 108/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Bothra Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abqpb0064J Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

support of his contention drew our attention on pages 151 to 153 of the paper book where the copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act was placed. Likewise, the learned AR also drew our attention on pages 154 to 157 of the paper book where ... reply of the assessee in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act was placed. Thus, the learned AR contended that there cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous and causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue in the given facts and circumstances

Prashant Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9754/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar

Harbans Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 (4), Mansa

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

ITA 40/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

S. S. White Technologies P. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 115/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year :2017-18 S.S. White Technologies P.Ltd. Pr.Cit-3 Survey No.2788/3 Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Krishna Petrol Pump Wadhwan-Ahmedabad-Highway Wadhwan, Surendranagar. Pan : Aahcs 2396 B

For Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

assessment proceedings, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to copy of the notice issued by the AO during assessment proceedings under section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.9.2019 directing the assessee to file breakup of “any other amount allowable as deduction” claimed 7 by the assessee amounting ... claim of the assessee included the foreign exchange fluctuation of Rs.68,11,121/-. He thereafter drew our attention to another notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act by the AO specifically asking the assessee to explain the reconciliation of foreign exchange fluctuation of Rs.68,11,121/-. The said

Indu Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 342/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

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