“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)

Solvex Interchem Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6973/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147BSection 147CSection 148Section 151(2)Section 68

Rs.15,00,000/- has escaped assessment. 10. When we examine the assessment order particularly para 4, the AO in the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act it is mentioned that the assessee has received Rs.15,00,000/- on 08.09.2009 from M/s. Govind Sharda & Co. which was repaid ... that the assessee has made payment of Rs.15,00,000/- to M/s. Durga Prasad & Co. but ultimately forgotten the same when notice under section 142(1) was issued rather introduced some new facts that the assessee has made payment of Rs.15,00,000/- to M/s. Govind Sharda & Co. it shows

DCIT, Chennai vs. K.Dhandapani and Co. Ltd., Chengalput

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., Corporate Circle-4(2), No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O No.109/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.1428/Chny/2017] "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., The Dcit, No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle-4(2), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य

Janyuvak Kalyan Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-27, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1002/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Janyuvak

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2735/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

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

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2734/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

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

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 422/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

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

Smt. Lizy George, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 398/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Jigana, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 535/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

ITA No.535/Bang/2021 Jigana, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Radius Deserve Land Developers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-City-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 889/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.889 /Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2016-17) Radius Deserve Land Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Developers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, City-6, Deserve House, Cst Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Road Jn, Next To Kotak Aayakar Bhavan, Mahindra Bank, Opp M.K.Road, Mumbai University, Mumbai – 400 020 Kalina Santacruz, East, Mumbai – 400098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aagca7060F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ajay Singh Respondent By : Riddhi Mishra Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit-6, Mumbai Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-6 (Herein After Referred As Cit) Has Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Issuing The Notice In-Spite Of The Fact That Scrutiny Assessment Has Been Completed By The Ito - 14(3)(1), Mumbai U/S 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 After Duly Examined & Considering Facts While Framing The Assessment Order U/S

For Appellant: Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Riddhi Mishra

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

ITA No. 889/Mum/2021 A.Y: 2016-17 1 Radius Deserve Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

findings clearly in the order u/s. 143(3) which is reproduced below:- Janata Traders, Gadag Page 23 of 29 “2.1 Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) was issued by my predecessor calling for information requisitioned for scrutiny of the case through e-proceeding. The undersigned has issued notice /letter under

Thirunavukarasu Arul, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

ITA 617/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 617/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Shri Thirunavukarasu Arul, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #18, Govindan Street, Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Room No. 619, 6Th Floor, Wanaparthy Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. Block, Aayakar Bhavan, #121, Mg [Pan:Amzpa4958N] Road, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 29.09.2016 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.6,60,330/- The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hema Bhupal, JCIT

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

I.T.A. No.617/Chny/20 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 11.07.2017 was issued and duly served on the assessee on 14.07.2017. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued and the same was served on the assessee. After considering the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer

Parthiban, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-7(2), Chennai

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

ITA 562/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 562/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Parthiban, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 83-A, Door No. 9, Thiruvallur Non Corporate Ward 7(2), Street, Jagadhambigai Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 050. [Pan:Biipp0005R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Sitaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai, Dated 17.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 14.07.2014 Returning Nil Income & Agricultural Income Of ₹.43,00,530/-. The Case Was Selected Through Cass & The Assessment Was Completed Under 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(1)(A)

Counsel for the assessee has submitted that during the course of original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 3 I.T.A. No.562/Chny/20 11.05.2016 asking the assessee to furnish proof for agricultural income. In response to the above notice, the assessee filed ... notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 04.09.2015 and served on the assessee on 08.09.2015. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 11.05.2016, wherein, the Assessing Officer has asked the proof for the agricultural income received. In response to the above

Keller Ground Engineering India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 114/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य

Vipul Lalit Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 27(3), Mumbai

In the result, we do not find that the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue

ITA 887/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Vipul Lalit Sheth R.No.401, 4Th Floor, 2/2, Kailash Niwas, Tower No.6,’ R.B. Mehta Road Vs. Ghatkopar (East), Vashi, Mumbai-400 077 Navi Mumbai 400703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabps7946J Assessee By : Shri Ripple G Trashawala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Ripple G Trashawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment proceedings, he referred to the return of income and the annual accounts of the assessee and thereafter referred to notice under Section 142(1) of the Act issued on 3rd June, 2019 by the learned Assessing Officer. He referred to paragraph no.4 wherein the details of loans and interest ... orders of the lower authorities. The assessment order in the present case was passed on the basis of inquiries mentioned in notice under Section 142(1) of the Act issued by the learned Assessing Officer on 3rd June, 2019 wherein the return filed by the assessee Vipul Lalit Sheth

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad mind. Without application of mind the questions raised by him in the annexure to notice under section 142 (1) of the Act could not have been formulated. The Assessing Officer was required to examine the return filed by the assessee in order to ascertain his income

Premitaben Harilal Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 339/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhpremilaben Harilal Vs. Pr.Cit-20 Thakkar, 12/29, Room No.418, 4Th Floor, Navjivan Society, Piramal Chamber, Lal Lamington Road, Baug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai - 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aerpt3405P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Riddhi Mishra Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Riddhi Mishra

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

ITA No.339/Mum/2021 A.Y.2015-16 1 Premilaben Harilal Thakkar Vs. Pr.CIT-20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE

ACIT-Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. D A Finvest P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1296/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Circle-15(1)(2) Vs. M/S D.A. Finvest Pvt. Room No. 483, 4 Th Floor, Ltd., 65, Mahavir Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Sector 17, Dbc, M.K. Road, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 400 075 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcd0420B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: None

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

would 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

Shri Uttamchand Sawlachand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 610/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

pertaining to the change of address of business premises. From this it is evident that the assessee’s non compliance to the section 142(1) notice issued by the AO is due to reasonable cause and has not intentionally avoided the assessment proceedings. We would like to place our reliance

Luxora Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1292/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of, Inter Alia, The Construction & Development Of Integrated Townships. The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 12Th December 2011 At A Total Income Of Rs 42,18,260. However, As A Result Of Search Operations Having Been Carried Out By The Income Tax Department On The Assessee & Its Associated Persons & Group Enterprises, The Assessee Was Called Upon To File A Fresh Return Under Section 153A, Which Was

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

ITA No.: 1292/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 1 of 15 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI „A‟ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram

Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1472/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, detailed questionnaire along with notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and same was attended by the assessee and submissions were filed. The AO, upon scrutiny of details submitted ... failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to notice issued under section 142(1) or section 148; or (ii) due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment