← 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)

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1613/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Sureshkumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 6(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2963/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Before Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2963/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Suresh Kumar, Income Tax Officer, No.25/74C, 9Th Street, Non-Corp Ward-6(1), Thiruvotriyur, Chennai. Chennai-600 019. [Pan: Bgcps5657N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.K.Meenakshisundaram, Itp प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.K.Meenakshisundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के

Yoosuf Rahuman Mohamed Ibrahim, Sivaganga vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukottai

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

ITA 2947/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Before Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2946 & 2947/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Yoosuf Rahuman Mohamed Ibrahim, Income Tax Officer, No.172 Thondi Road, Aranmanai Vasal, Ward-1 Sivaganga, Pudukkottai. Tamil Nadu-630 561. [Pan: Ahopy0981D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.R.Subramanian, C.A (Virtually) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.R.Subramanian, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के

Yoosuf Rahuman Mohamed Ibrahim, Sivaganga vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 2946/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Before Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2946 & 2947/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Yoosuf Rahuman Mohamed Ibrahim, Income Tax Officer, No.172 Thondi Road, Aranmanai Vasal, Ward-1 Sivaganga, Pudukkottai. Tamil Nadu-630 561. [Pan: Ahopy0981D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.R.Subramanian, C.A (Virtually) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.R.Subramanian, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के

The Triplicane Coop Credit Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2672/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.B. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 80ASection 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

discuss the queries raised or the answers given thereto. But the fact is, the Assessing Officer had issued a questionnaire dated 26.07.2011 under Section 142 (1) of the Act raising 34 questions on various issues and assessee had given an explanation and also submitted materials. In our view, once ... satisfaction in respect of each and every query raised. Therefore, as there is no discussion or finding on the 34 questions raised under Section 142(1) of the Act, vide the communication dated 26.07.2011, the Assessing Officer should be taken as having accepted assessee's explanation. Paragraph 14 of Aroni

Reddy Housing Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 635/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Reddy Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, #133/1 The Residency, 2Nd Floor Ward - 2, Residency Road, Hassan. H No.36B, Bommegowda Building, Paduvalu, Hippe Holenarasipur, Hassan– 573 211, Karnataka. Pan : Bsops 2078 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Narendra Sharma Adv Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Narendra Sharma AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

issued and served on the assesse, subsequently other statutory notices were issued to the assesee. In response to the questionnaire issued under section 142(1) of the Act assessee Page 2 of 5 filed its reply. From the submissions it was noticed that assessee has taken short term borrowing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Hirehal Jairaj Balram, Bengaluru

ITA 1961/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

Jagannath Indrani, Bengaluru, Karnataka vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1456/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Balusamy, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271DSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Sanjitha Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1173/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Chirag Chandrakant Mehta, Mumbai vs. Principal CIT-27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4397/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Chirag Chandrakant Mehta Vs Principal Commissioner Of C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Income Tax-27, Mumbai 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan: (Aabpm5091L) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 68

income in response to notice 5 Chirag Chandrakant Mehta A.Y. 2015-16 under section 148 on 02.04.2021. Statutory notices were issued under section 142(1) for which assessee furnished his reply on 14.07.2022 and 09.02.2022, which were considered by the ld. AO. 2.3. Also, notices under section 133(6) were

Arpit Minerals (P) Ltd, New Dewlhi vs. ITO Ward -3(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7486/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7486/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2009-10) Arpit Minerals (P) Ltd., M-544, 3Rd Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110087 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadca-8341-C बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Keshav Kishor Anand, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 05.10.2025, For Assessment Year 2009-10 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Legal Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Form No. 35, Challenging Validity Of The Notice Issued U/S.148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Have Not Been Adjudicated By The Cit(A). The Cit(A) Restored The Matter To The Assessing Officer (Ao) For Fresh Examination On Merits. He Further Submitted That The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act (Placed At Page No. 24 Of The Paper Book) Bears An Incorrect Pan. It Was Contended That The Said Notice, As Well As The 2 Subsequent Notices Issued Under Section 142(1) Of The Act Were Never Served On The Assessee, Therefore, The Assessee Could Not Participate In The Assessment Proceedings. The Ao, In Ex Parte Proceedings, Made Addition Of Rs. 30,60,000/- Holding That The Assessee Had Obtained Accommodation Entries. The Assessee In Appeal Before The Cit(A) Has Challenged Validity Of The Assessment Proceedings On The Ground Of A Defective Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As Well As On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keshav Kishor Anand, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148

paper book) bears an incorrect PAN. It was contended that the said notice, as well as the 2 subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act were never served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings. The AO, in ex parte proceedings

Mohan Riti, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ranchi

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

ITA 437/RAN/2024[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

Rs.62,44,030/- was deposited in the HDFC Bank, Ranchi. Since the assessee had not filed the return of income, notice under section 142(1) was issued, both through ITBA and by speed post, directing the assessee to file the return. However, the assessee did not comply. The ld. Assessing

Thakarshi Maharaj, Anjar Kutch vs. ITO, Ward-2, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 820/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 820/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Thakarshi Maharaj Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Chandrani, Anjar, Kutch-370 020 (Guj) Vs. Gandhidham, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector-8, Gandhidham – 370 201 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bllpm 3616 D (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, राजकोट"ायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indira Bai Jindal, Khargone vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 134/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: None (Written request)For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

verified and was, therefore, treated as non-est. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued several notices under section 142(1) of the Act and also a show cause notice, granting multiple opportunities to the assessee to explain the nature and genuineness of the transactions. Despite these ... that replies filed by the assessee were not considered. The Ld. CIT(A), after perusing the assessment records, noted that multiple notices under section 142(1) and a show cause notice were issued and duly served upon the assessee, granting sufficient opportunities to present her case. The CIT(Appeals) also

Ashok Hirachand Shah, Panvel vs. Assessing Officer Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 812/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.812/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Hirachand Shah, Assessing Officer, Plot No. 4, Mangal Bunglow, Ward – 2, Panvel Road No. 5, Sector No. 19, Vs. New Panvel, Tal.-Panvel-410206 Pan : Acdps4800M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of 17-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Denial Of Natural Justice & Proper Opportunity The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Appellant Was Denied Proper Opportunity & Natural Justice During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Called For Information At The Far End Of The Assessment Proceedings On 19/11/2018 & Despite The Appellant'S Authorized Representative Submitting The Details On 19/12/2018, The Ao Failed To Discuss Or Consider The Same. The Matter Ought To Have Been Remanded Back For Fresh Adjudication To Allow Proper Analysis Of The Transactions. 2. Addition Without Specifying The Section The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- Made By The Ao Without Specifying The Section Under Which The Addition Was Made. The Non-Mention Of The Specific Section Renders The Assessment Order Bad In Law, As It Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice & Transparency In Taxation. 3. Failure To Discharge Onus Under Section 69A

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 147Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

DCIT-Circle 1(1), Pune, Swargate Pune vs. Ansec Human Resource Services Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1309/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80J

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Krishnaveni Kokkula, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 558/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय

Laxmi Venkata Krishna Rice Corporation, Nalgonda vs. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1700/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69A

F.No.Pr.CIT-1/Hyd/147/2022-23. 5. As the assessee firm during the course of the assessment proceedings failed to comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act and provide an explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits of Rs.66.50 lakhs made in its bank account maintained with

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Bentec India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle -1(1), Kolkata.…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Bentec India Ltd………………. ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Phase-Ii, Kasba Industrial Estates, Plot No.11, Kol-700107.. [Pan: Aabcb0647G] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manish Tiwari, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 186 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh