← 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)

M/S Nanobi Data and Analytics Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 472/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Nanobi Data & Analytics Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 1289/1090/E, Commissioner Of 18Th Cross, 3Rd Sector, Income Tax, Vs. Hsr Layout, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Bangalore. Pan: Aadcn8822F Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 11/11/2016 By The Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts Of & The Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Not Giving The Appellant A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard In The Impugned Matter. 3. That Notice Under Section 143(2) Having Been Served After The Expiry Of Time Limit Stipulated Under Section 143(2) Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law & The Order

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

K R Pradeep, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Girija G.P, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S

Fereshte D Sethna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16 (2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee’s for the A

ITA 5873/MUM/2019[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. Mrunal Parekh &For Respondent: Shri. Anchal Sharma.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the I T rules is necessary. As per the directions, the A.O. has issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act. In compliance, the Ld.AR of the assessee appeared and filed a letter dated 28.11.2017 along with Bank Statement of ICICI Bank

ITO (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6755/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ao Without Any Reasonable Cause & Despite Being Given Sufficient Opportunities?" (B) "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Accepting Additional Evidence Is Not Correct As Per Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (204Taxmann 106(Delhi) 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Addition U/S. 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Cannot Be Made In This Case, Because The Ao Has Not Made Addition U/S. 68, But Has Made The Addition As An Unexplained Investment Which Is Subject Matter Of Section 69 Of The I.T. Act, 1 961 3. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Source Of Investment Amounting To Rs. 25.37 Crs. In M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd. By The Assessee Lies In Dubai On 2 Shri Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 68Section 69

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Mrs. Kavitha Rajgopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 6755/Mum/2019 (A.Y

Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 596/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

died in the meantime. His son who was one of the legal representatives filed returns upon which the assessing officer issued notices under Section 142 (1) and Section 143 (2). These were complied with and no objections were raised to the assessment proceedings. The assessment order mentioned the names ... involved a situation where the return of income had been filed by one of the legal representatives to whom notices were issued under Section 142(1) and 143(2). No objection was raised by the legal representative who had filed the return that a notice should also to be served

Madanmohanlal G. Arora, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 514/MUM/2021[AABPA1302Q]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhmadanmohanlal G. Arora Vs. Pcit, 28-1003, Seawoods Room No.120, 1St Floor, Estates (Nri Complex) Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Building No. 28, Sector C-43, G Block, Bandra 54,56 & 58 Nerul, Kurla Complex, Bandra Navi Mumbai – 400 706 (E), Mumbai – 400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpa1302Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

ITA No.514/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2010-11 1 Madanmohanlal G. Arora Vs. PCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Smt. Swetha Ranga Swamy Shetty, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1528/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Swetha Ranga Swamy Shetty Friends Paradise Flat No.004 9Th Cross 13Th Main, E Block Ito Ward 6(3)(2) Vs. Bengaluru 560 092 Bengaluru Pan No : Bdhps5562E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sankarganesh K., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 15/04/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. At The Outset The Ld.Ar Submitted That Assess Did Not Receive Did Not Receive Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act & Therefore Could Not Attend The Assessment Proceedings. It Is Submitted That Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Ao Was Under Section 144 Of The Act. It Is Smt. Swetha Ranga Swamy Shetty, Bangalore

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

mentioned the current address to be No.8, St.Jihn’s School Strrt, Amruthahalli, Bangalore 560092. The Ld.AR submitted that one of the notice under section 142(1) was issued to the correct address. The assesee also submitted that that the Ld.CIT(A), dismissed assessee’s appeal on additional ground. The Ld.CIT

Viral Corporation India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT Circle-11(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 688/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhviral Corporation India Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 106, Damji Income Tax, Circle- Shamji Udyog Bhavan, 11(3)(2), Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Veera Desai Road, Mumbai (W), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 058 Mumbai 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 11USection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viib)

ITA No.688/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 1 Viral Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 11(3)(2) IN THE INCOME

Mr. Navinchandra Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

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

ITA 517/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 517 & 518/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Mr. Navinchandra Shah Vs. Pr.Cit- 20, 10/11, Harganga Room No.418, Mahal, Khodadad 4Th Floor, Circle, Dadar-Tt, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – 400014. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps6096A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Rakesh Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit)-20, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. Since The Issues In These Appeal Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Consolidated Order Is Passed.

For Appellant: Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rakesh Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 68

equity shares and working of short term capital gain/long term capital gain. The assessee furnished a detailed reply to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein the assessee while replying to the query on transaction of shares, informed that a declaration under IDS 2016 has been

Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

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

ITA 516/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemr. Bhavesh Kantilal Vs. Pcit-20 Kubadia Room No. 418, 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath 4Th Floor, Bldg, Sk Bole, Dadar Piramal Chamber (W), Mumbai – 400028 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Rakesh Garg, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rakesh Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69

equity shares and working of short term capital gain/long term capital gain. The assessee furnished a detailed reply to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein the assessee while replying to the query on transaction of shares, informed that a declaration under IDS 2016 has been

DCIT-8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ashok Santu Bhavani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed

ITA 6510/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6Th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New Pushpamilan, Mk Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018

For Appellant: Mr.Mehul Jain.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Ajit Jain.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

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

Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “बी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम. बालगणेश, लेखा सद

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Circlr-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “बी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम. बालगणेश, लेखा सद

Mr Ketan Gokuldas Badiani, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2611/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2611/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Ketan Gokuldas Badiani बिधम/ Ito-33(2)(2) F-221 Raj Arcade Ahaveer 609, C-12, Pratyaksh Kar Vs. Nagar Dhanukar Wadi Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Kandiwali West, Mumbai- Complex, Bandra (E), 400067. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajapb1472C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajendra Thakkar (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -45, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. A) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Fact Son Records In Confirming An Addition Of 15,61,217 By Arbitrarily Estimating The Additional Gross Profit @ 5% Of Turnover As Against 4.38% Already Offered To Tax By The Appellant. A.Y. 2011-12 B) The Appellant Submit That It Have Been Engaged In Trading Of The Leather Articles, Transported In Hand Carts, Items Of Purchases Are Identifiable Against The Sales.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Thakkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर

Shantivijay Jeweles Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3797/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2007-08
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s

Sri. H.K. Praveez vs. DCIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 938/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Dilip, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 43A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, JM ITA

DCIT vs. Sri. H.K. Parveez

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 1129/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Dilip, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 43A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, JM ITA

Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7035/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

For Appellant: Shri Satya PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra (DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM (Hearing

Joynet Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 868/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 868/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Joynet Developers Llp बिधम/ Pr. Cit Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, 101/B, Bellona, Pant Nagar, Vs. 90 Feet Road, Ghatkopar Tower No.6, Vashi Station East, Mumbai-400075. Complex, Vashi-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfk0186D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hemant Shah Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(“Pcit”)- 27, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Pcit)”] In View Of The Provisions U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-27 Has Erred In Setting Aside The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Hemant ShahFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

here in after referred to as “the Act”) and had also failed even in terms of the notice issued under section 142(1), then the provisions of section 144 are attracted and the Ld. AO has the power to pass an order to the best of his judgment. In such ... been filed under section 139(1), 139(4) and 139(5) or no return of income is filed in pursuance to notice under section 142(1) or directions issued under section 142(2A) are not complied with or the information asked for under section 143(2) or under section 142