“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)

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 432/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

reopening the assessment. This letter is enclosed in pages 6 and 7 of Paper Book Vol.1 filed before us. On 20.11.2008, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued by the learned Assessing Officer calling for various details. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a reply

Girish Vipinchandra Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(1) (4), Mumbai

Accordingly allowed partly for The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed partly for The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 674/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Girish Vipinchandra Patel, Income Tax Officer- 159/B, Lalita Sadan, S.V. 35(1)(4), Vs. Road, Bandra (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aafpp 4072 L Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Girish Vipinchandra Patel, (In Person) Revenue By : Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Girish Vipinchandra Patel, (in Person)

Section 131Section 131oSection 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 153ASection 69A

follows: the same in the form of questions and answers as follows: …… Question No. 4 Question No. 4 :Where a notice under section 142(1)/ 143(2)/ Where a notice under section 142(1)/ 143(2)/ 148/ 153A/ 153C of the Income 148/ 153A/ 153C of the Income

Transworld Terminals Dadri Private Limited (Formerly Albatross Inland Ports Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

ITA 2581/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 80Section 80GSection 80I

activities of the company but the AO stated that he has not submitted complete reply to the questionnaire issued along with notice under section 142(1) of the Act despite issuing five reminders. On failure of the assessee to file complete detail to substantiate its claim qua deductions ... through ITBA system, addressed to the assessee company’s designated e-mail ID but it is strange that when first notice issued under section 142(1) annexed with questionnaire was received by the assessee how the remaining notices were not received by the assessee. However, in the interest of justice

Shri. Jaywant Shyam Rathod, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 2438/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Raman Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

sent to the assessee to file online response in respect of his cash deposit but the assessee has not responded. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued through Income Tax 3 Shri Jaywant Shyam Rathod Business Application (ITBA) and was delivered online and also through speed ... basis of incorrect fact that the assessee has not filed any return of income whereas the assessee in response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act has filed the return of income along with computation of income and brought on record its acknowledgment available at page

Arihant Associates, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blearihant Associates V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 Anand Tower-C, Bldg.42 Room No. 120, 1St Floor Tilak Nagar, Chembur Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai -400089 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aapfa1588C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ruturaj Gurjar Department Represented By : Shri R.M. Madhavi

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 263Section 314(8)Section 43C

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

Salim Ibrahimbai Jaka, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cnetral Circle-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5147/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Salim Ibrahimbhai Jaka, Dy. Cit Central Circle- 2Nd Floor, Malhotra House, 3(3), Office No. 1 Opp. Gpo Fort, Vs. Room No. 1923, 19Th Mumbai-400 001. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Abppj 5700 N Appellant Respondent : Assessee By None : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 01/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by None

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-2, Kolkata P-37A, Nani Gopal Roychowdhury Vs. Avenue, Anada Palit Road, Kolkata- 700014. Pan: Aadcp 0094 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Respondent By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Pr. Cit, Kolkata-2 Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/104144167(1) Dated 24.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Through This Appeal, The Assessee Has Essentially Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax For Invoking The Impugned Revisionary Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act & Passing The Order Thereunder For Which, The Assessee Has Taken As Many As Eight Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Not Reproduced For The Sake Of Brevity. The Two Issues Which Have Been Considered By The Ld. Pr. Cit For The Purpose Of Invoking The Revisionary Proceedings & Referred In The Grounds Of Appeal Are (I) Deduction U/S 80G Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 20,000/- For Which No Evidence In Support Of Payment Of Donation Is Produced To Ascertain Its Veracity (Ii) Deduction U/S 80G

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Prasad Sp Entertainment LLP, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 261/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Prasads Sp Entertainment Vs. Acit,Cc-1(2) Llp Aaykar Bhawan 8-2-293/82/Jiii/6 Basher Bagh Ramanaidu Studios Hyderabad Road No.79, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 033

For Appellant: Shri A.Srinivas,CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet

M/S.Standard Fireworks P Ltd, Sivakasi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeal stand allowed

ITA 279/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthilkumaran (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी

Duckwoo Autoind Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvallur vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

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

ITA 232/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.232/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.S.Maruthu Pandian, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(b)

shall be as under: a. In ‘Limited Scrutiny’ cases, the reasons/issues shall be forthwith communicated to the assessee concerned. b. The Questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act in ‘Limited Scrutiny’ cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny ... selection in AIR/CIB/26AS cases. This functionality is expected to be operationalized by 15th October, 2014. Further, the Assessing Officer while issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act which is enclosed with the first questionnaire would proceed to verify only the specific aspects requiring examination/verification. In such cases

Sahrudaya Health Care (Kurnool) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 596/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sahrudaya Health Care Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Kurnool), Private Limited, Ward 3 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aawcs3735M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

income in the return; 13. The above provisions indicate that while processing the return of income that was filed under section 139 or section 142(1) of the Act and computing the total income or loss, the adjustment need not be confined to the disallowance of expenditure or increase

Subrahmanyam Jagarlamudi, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 414/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Subrahmanyam Vs. Income Tax Officer Jagarlamudi, Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan: Acxpj5454G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd.Fazal Revenue By: Shri Naveen Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 28/06/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-10, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Ex-Parte Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,48,15,901/- Made By The Assessing Officer As Unexplained Income.

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd.FazalFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Kumar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

ITA No 414 of 2022 Subrahmanyam Jagarlamudi Hyderabad आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Suchir Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit –Central Circle – 2(2) V. M/S. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building (Amalgamated Company – Manan Pharma Pvt Ltd. W.E.F 01.04.2013) Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Shiv Ashish M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Prade, Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaccm7533K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pooja Rander & Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Rander &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 115JSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Jai Malhar Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 29(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1797/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

bank. Therefore, the Assessee was asked to justify the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act vide notice dated 20.12.2020 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. In response thereto the Assessee filed response dated 19.01.2021. Thereafter, vide notice dated 11.02.2021 the Assessee was asked to show cause

Vertex Spinning Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 256/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

fixed for hearing. However, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Thereafter, further opportunity was granted to the Assessee by issuing notices under Section 142(1) of the Act on 03.08.2012, 24.09.2012, 05.10.2012, 11.12.2012 and ITA. No. 256/Mum/218 & 4032/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 02.01.2013. Since the aforesaid notices were

Shashikala Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Shashikala Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 10(1) Pan:Aaspg1838N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Darshan Jakharia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.3.2022 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 26.07.2017 For A.Y 2017-18 Admitting Income From House Property & Other Sources At Rs.3,66,720/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Issues On Which The Selection Was Made Was “Large Value Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period As Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 9.8.2018 Was Issued & Served Electronically On The Assessee As Well As Page 1 Of 15

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

ITA No 222 of 2022 Shashikala Gupta आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Raja Gopal Reddy Goli, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Raja Gopal Reddy Goli Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(5) Pan:Bbwpg4389J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6.6.2019 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-5 Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That There Is Error In The Order U/S 143(3) Dated 19.12.2017 3. The Ld. Pr. Cit Ought To Have Considered The Facts That The Assessing Officer While Completing The Assessment U/S 143(3) Considered All The Facts & Circumstances & Arrived At The Total Income. 4. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Is Erroneous & Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 5. Any Other Ground That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.“ Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Advocate Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

ITA 139 of 2021 Raj Gopal Reddy Goli आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 224/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Hrishikesh Mega Townwhip (P) Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 47/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Hrishikesh Mega Township (P) Limited,.......Appellant Flat Ah-5- 8/15, Lake View Housing Complex, Near Anandamayee Ashram, B/1, Drainage Canel Road, Howrah-711102 [Pan: Aacch1729C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

Commissioner by exercising the powers under section 263 vide its order dated 01.03.2013. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) directing the assessee to submit the necessary evidence in support of its claim for share capital. The assessee wrote back to the ld. Assessing Officer that

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Cabcon India (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals in I

ITA 1131/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

seeps aiciteher aiferaz0T WII 'w' Uls, BYctapIAl di IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA vd oft