← 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)

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 1129/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

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

Ecospace Suppliers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(2), Kolkata

ITA 583/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE

Singal Pipe Fittings Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 13(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1762/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE

Grip Strapping Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Page 6 of 8 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

Skyline Millars Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumabi 6, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is fully allowed

ITA 776/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalskyline Millars Ltd. 24 Po Box No. 9208, Kurla Kirol Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aaact2755J ...... Appellant Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Room No. 501, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dalpat Shah, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Order U/Sec. 263 Of The Income Tax Act Is Bad-In-Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Dalpat Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore vs. Mr. Shorff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha, Kodagu

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

ITA 997/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Rooprekha Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 300/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 68

। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE

Sushil Kumar Paul, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Siliguri

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

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 271A

reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under Section 22(4)/ 23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1)/ 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Have concealed the particulars of your Income or ……………………… furnished inaccurate particulars of such income

Sridevi Vuyyuru, Hyder vs. ITO Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

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

ITA 575/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)

line verification under ‘operation clean money’ that the assessee made cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 24,21,360/-, issued notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Assessee, however, did not file any return of income. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, took ... income tax returns nor declared her true income by paying taxes thereon and also since she did not respond to notices under section 142(1) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer found no option but to treat the entire amounts of credit to the income of the assessee and concluded

Mangayarkarasi Subramaniam, Erode vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 850/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.850/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Mangayarkarasi Subramaniam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 53/1, Avvaiyar Street, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Erode. 638 011. Delhi. [Pan:Arhpm8094N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 08.09.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Ast/Air Information On Itd Query, The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Amounting To ₹.13,90,000/- In Her Saving Bank Account During The Financial Year 2012-13 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income, The Assessing Officer Initiated

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

income. Since the assessee has not complied with the notice issued under section 148 of the Act or various notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act or explained about the cash deposit of ₹.13,90,000/-, the Assessing Officer concluded best judgement assessment under section 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 655/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

information. Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was issued on the assessee on 31.07.2014. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued on 15.05.2015. The assessee has not responded to various notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer

Mohamed Hussain Mahamed Harisai, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 654/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

information. Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was issued on the assessee on 31.07.2014. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued on 15.05.2015. The assessee has not responded to various notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer

Sgn Distributors India, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 946/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesgn Distributors Vs. Ito – 23(3)(3) 105, Veena Beena Mumbai-400021. Shopping Centre, Opp Bandra Rly Stn, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpr3175L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vimal Punmiya.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER SGN Distributors Vs. ITO

Shri Bhanwarlal M. Harsh, Thane vs. Dy CIT CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Bhanwarlal M Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) A/2, 406, Runwal Plaza, Air India Building Nr. Koresh India Vartak Nariman Point, Nagar, Thane (West) Mumbai - 400021 400606 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacph5666F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Manoj MundraFor Respondent: J. Saravanan
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Have concealed the particulars of your income or………...........furnished inaccurate particular of such income

Shree Sainath Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range-7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4959/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshree Sainath Vs. Dcit, Enterprises, (Now Central Rang – 7(3) Converted Into Shree Room No. 655, 6Th Sainath Enterprises Floor, Aayakar Constructions & Bhavan, Maharshi Developers Pvt Ltd.,) Karve Road, 412, Floor – 4, 17G Mumbai – 400020. Vardhaman Chambers Cawasji Patel, Horniman Circle, Fort Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdfs2374M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Niraj Seth.Ar Respondent By : Shri S.K Jain.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 49, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal; Shree Sainath Enterprises, Mumbai. 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 46,94,439/-U/Sec36(1)(Iii).

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K Jain.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 6806/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc Complex Patel Road, Opp Pawan Bandra (E), Mumbia – Hans, Vile Parle (W) 400 051. Mumbai – 400 056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande.Dr Respondent By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)) - 37, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 U/Sec Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Hande.DRFor Respondent: Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala.AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 57Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

M/S. Marshal Multitrade Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO WD 9(2)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1914/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 145ASection 250Section 254(1)

refined oil. The assessee also submitted that the observation of the AO that the assessee has not complied with the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act is factually incorrect and all the details as sought were submitted by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order

Red Monster Mobile Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400021 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Dheeraj Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

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

ITA 886/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledheeraj Babulal Shah V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co.Llp (Ca) Room No. 120, 1St Floor {Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.} Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Arwps1458D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajkumar Singh Department Represented By : Shri S.H. Usmani

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

M/S Cyber Infosystem and Technologies P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 921/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Cyber Infosystem Vs. Dcit, Cc-5(3) & Technologies Pvt R.No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Ltd,396, Kamath Air India Bldg, Industrial Estate, Veer Nariman Point, Savarkar Marg, Mumbai – 400021. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc2176K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Priyavart Gupta.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Deepika Arora.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A))- 53, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S Cyber Infosystem & Technologies P Ltd, Mumbai. 1) That, The Notice Issued Under Section 271(1)(C) Read With Section 274 Of The Act & The Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Are Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Mr.Priyavart Gupta.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Deepika Arora.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL