“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)

Gonikoppal Primary Rural Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kodagu vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

ITANo.1074/Bang/2025 M/s. Bhavana Co op Credit Society Niyamitha, Sirsi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Mohd Akram Abdul Latif Ansari, Bhiwandi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kalyan

ITA 3970/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Mohd. Akram Abdul Latif Ansari Ito Ward 1(1) Gala No. 02, Mh No. 71, More Mohan Plaza, Near Building, Kotergate Road Vs. Poddar School Kap Kaneri, Bhiwandi Wayale Nagar, Thane, Maharashtra-421 302. Khadagpada, Kalyan Pan : Adnpa2221M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin SalunkheFor Respondent: Shri Punit Jhabak

Section 142(1)Section 69A

lakh in his five savings bank accounts during demonetization period. The appellant has not filed Return of Income despite notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was issued. Since there was no response from the appellant, the AO proceeded with assessment and completed the same as best

Anukool Gas Service, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3402/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 269SSection 271ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No

Bijendra Kumar Jain, Baghpat vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Barout

In the result, additions are deleted

ITA 6562/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bijendra Kumar Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Vardhman General Store, Gandhi Vs Meerut At Baraut, Income Tax Bazar, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh-250609 Office, Mahavir Marg, Near Shiv Maurti, Baraut, Baghpat, Pan:Acdpj 9339 A Uttar Pradesh-250611 Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 69A

completed under section 144 of the Act. No notice under section 143(2) was issued before completion of assessment. A notice under section 142(1) issued to assessee on 16.08.2019. The assessee responded to said show-cause vide reply dated 26.08.2019. In reply dated 26.08.2019, that bank account which ... assessment order is invalid as has been held in a series of decisions. The learned CIT(A) has held that notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee and that assessee has not filed return of income in response to such notice. The case of the assessee

ACIT, CC-13, Jhandewalan vs. Sbl Pvt Ltd, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Vs Acit Sbl Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-13 Plot No.3, Sector-12, Iie, New Delhi. Sideul, Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249403. Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Shaurya Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 26/10525/17-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Engaged In Manufacturing Of Homoeopathy Medicines In India & Has Two Manufacturing Units Situated At Haridwar Which Are Eligible For Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act & Also Has Units At Jaipur & Sahibabad, Which Are Non-Eligible Units. The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2014, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 18,85,40,940/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 31.08.2015, Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaire. In Response, Requisite Details & Replies Were From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions & Replies Filed By The Assessee In Support Of Its Claim, Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee Company At Inr 52,74,33,562/- Vide Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Estimation Of Income At Sahibabad Plant & Further By Making Disallowance Out Of Various Expenses & By Not Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ic Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

ITA No.4391/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI

Viraj Software Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-26(4), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1084/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Viraj Software Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-26(4), 28, Raja Garden, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccv5229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Rishi L Anandani, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Bilaspur, Aykar Vibhag Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.709/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rishi L Anandani Bhakt Kawaram Ward, Ward No.20, Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Aqspa4173C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rishi L Anandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Menaka Jayasaval, Samastipur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 169/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

said notice, but in response to the notice, neither assessee nor her authorized representative filed any reply. Thereafter various notices under section 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee electronically to furnish the documents but no compliance was made. In the absence of any satisfactory reply from

Gajamfar Ali, Rohru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Rampur, Rampur

ITA 1248/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) (Virtual)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1

Gajamfar Ali, Rohru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Rampur, Ward Rampur

ITA 1247/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) (Virtual)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1

Gajanfar Ali, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer Rampur, Ward Rampur

ITA 1246/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) (Virtual)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhawan, Vejalpur vs. Jasmine Jayantibhai Sanghavi, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1779/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1779/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) बनाम/ Income-Tax Officer Jasmine Jayantibhai Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad Sanghavi Vs. 7-F, Swetal Flat, Khanpur Bai Centre, Khanpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aqcps1433R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Talati, AR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A

Pravinbhai Babubhai Prajapati, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1731/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

demonetization period in State Bank of India and The Ahmedabad Mercantile Cooperative Bank. The case was taken for scrutiny and accordingly, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 08.03.2018 to the assessee. The assessee did not file return of income for the relevant assessment year

Albatross Investment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Albatross Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 3(1) 1, 7Th Floor, Room No.707, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7 British Indian Street, Chworinghee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca6069N Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

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

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata..……………… …………….……….……Appellant Vs. Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd…………...………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent 25A, S P Mukherjee Road, Kol-700025. [Pan: Aadcr5073Q] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 27 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 127Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

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

Krishna Chandra Das, Twenty Four Parganas South vs. I.T.O., Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1804/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das..……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ramkrishnanagar Laskarpur, Alipore, 24 Parganas (S), W.B - 743515. [Pan: Ajapd6700B] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri B. B. Payra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019–20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2019-20. In The Absence Of Voluntary Compliance, The Assessing Officer Initiated Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By Making Following Additions:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 15Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 45Section 56Section 69ASection 69B

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

Joygopalpur Youth Development Centre, Sandeshkhali vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1378/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

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

International Flavours & Fragrances India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 268/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 801B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirupur vs. Loocust Incorp, Tirupur

In the result, appeal of the assessee vide CO Nos

ITA 1695/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695 / Chny/2025 Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Loocust Incorp, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Tirupur. Pn Road, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Co Nos.-77, 78, 79 & 80 / Chny/2025, Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Loocust Incorp, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Pn Road, Tirupur, Tirupur. Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirupur vs. Loocust Incorp, Tirupur

In the result, appeal of the assessee vide CO Nos

ITA 1694/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)