← 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)

Torrent Power Grid Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1191/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

dated 12-01-2016. Ld. Counsel drawn our attention to the reply filed in response to the notice issued by the A.O. under section 142(1) of the Act which are available at Page Nos. 39 to 41 of the Paper Book. I.T.A.No.1191/Ahd/2025 4 A.Y. 2020-21 Page

Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- 3(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 532/AHD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

notice under section 148 dated 27.03.2015 after obtaining approval from the competent authority. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued several notices under section 142(1) of the Act calling for details regarding the nature of land, distance from municipal limits and the alleged cash receipt of %1

Rupal Chemicals, Ratnagiri vs. ITO Ward 1, Ratnagiri

In the result Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2588/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.2588/Pun/2025 नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Vs Ito, Ward 1, Rupal Chemicals, D/13, Midc, Lote Ratnagiri Parashuram, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri-415722 Maharashtra Pan-Aabfr7940R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ramkrishna LingsurFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk-
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144B

Mauli Corporation and Manasi enterprises has furnished updated returns under section 139(8) of the IT act only after issue of notice under section 142 (1) of the IT act. The assessing officer was of the view that since neither the agreement was entered during assessment year

Sheth Chimanlal Govinddas Memorial Trust, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1224/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 11Section 12ASection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "बी" न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFOREMS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sureshkumar Ramanlal Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Ward 19(3)(1)), Mumbai

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

ITA 3456/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘G’ BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ca (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 2078/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalca(Singapore) Pte Ltd., The Assistant Vs. C/O Ca (India) Technologies Commissioner Of India Private Limited, Income Tax, S1 Wipro Sez, International Taxation, Doddathogur Village, Circle2 (1)(1), Begur Hobli, Mumbai. Electronic City, Bangalore-560100. [Pan :Aahcc8349Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ajit Jain, With Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, Ars Respondent By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, with Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 270ASection 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Kailash Chand Singhal, (Through Legal Heir), Abhishek Singhal, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7214/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7214/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2020-21) Kailash Chand Singhal, Through Legal Heir Abhishek Singhal, H-B 202, Vaishali, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201012 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Amxps-1773-M बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Cgo Complex-I, Purani Hapur Chungi, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Ghaziabad 201002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Ms. Lovely Garg, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Lovely Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Imran Rafikbhai Motanwala, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-3, Junagadh

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

ITA 217/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.217/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Imran Rafikbhai Motanwala The Ito, Ward-3 बनाम Shop No. 22/23, Sardar Patel Junagadh Marketing Yard, Dolatpara, Vs. Junagadh-362037 Pan : Aevpm6429E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Darshit Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Darshit Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Shri Sureshkumar Harjivanbhai Chandarana, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Circle - 2 (2) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 415/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 415/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Sureshkumar Harjivanbhai Chandarana Acit, Circle – 2(2)(1), Rajkot A-75, New Market Yard, Village-Bedi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Morbi, Highway, Rajkot- 360 003 Road, Rajkot –360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpc8536E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Durga Dutt, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2025 : 15/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal Cit(A), Ahmedabad-13 Dated 06.10.2023 [In Short, “Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act, Vide Order Dated 19.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Career Abroad Educational Consultants Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 84/CHANDI/2025[2012-13 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

issue of lack of opportunity of being heard, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that several notices including notice under section 148, notice under section 142(1), and a show-cause notice were duly issued to the assessee. However, the assessee chose not to respond to any of them until

Avon Cycles Limited, G.T Road, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana

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

ITA 705/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 705/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs The Pcit-I, G.T.Road, Dhandari Kalan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं/.Pan No: Aabca4140R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashish Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 Physical Hearing Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Pcit"), Dated 27.03.2025, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantive Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Ld. Pcit -1, Ludhiana, Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming The Jurisdiction To Invoke The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act To Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) When The Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. The Order Passed By Ld. Pcit(1), Ludhiana, Being Illegal Unjustified & Against The Provisions Of Section 263 May Be Annulled. 2. That Ld. Pcit (1) Erred In Law & On Facts In Setting Aside The Order Of Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) By Applying The Different Approach On The Same Set Of Facts On The Issues Already Considered By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Pune, Swargate vs. Mangal Balasaheb Gole, Kothrud

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

ITA 1209/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Ito, Ward 2(4), Pune Mangal Balasaheb Gole Vs. Pirangut, Kothrud, S.O Pune City, Pune – 411038 Affpg6617R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 54B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Riddhiman Realcon LLP (Formerly Riddhiman Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1735/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

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

Kumaresan Muthukrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(2), Madurai

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

ITA 2478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: 18.11.2025
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Aadarsh Surana, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

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

Vijayarangam Ranganath Pravhakar, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 164/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Mr. Muniyappa Ramachandra, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1203/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Sunder Singh, Gohana vs. ITO, Ward - 4, Sonipat

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7020/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7020/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Sunder Singh, S/O Jai Pal, Vpo Khandrai, Tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana 131301 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Benps-8749-L बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Sonipat, Haryana 131301 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 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 (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’) Dated 01.09.2025, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued The Notice U/S.142(1) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 30.12.2019 Granting Time To The Assessee To Furnish Reply By 10:00 A.M. On 31.12.2019. It Was Contended That Although Very Short Time Was Granted By The Ao, Still The Assessee Attempted To Comply With Directions Of The Ao & Tried To Upload The Submissions On The Official Portal Of The Department. However

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Farukhabad vs. Assessing Officer, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 76/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Farrukhabad vs. DCIT Circle-4(2)(1) Farrukhabad, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 54/AGR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “DB”: AGRA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL