← All Phrases

“Section 143(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(2)17,209 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(2) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(2)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

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. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

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.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such 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. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Judgments citing Section 143(2)

Shree Roshan Cold Storage, Sambhal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, accordingly, the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is set aside

ITA 3156/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanshree Roshan Cold Storage, Vs. Pr.Cit, Vpo – Rustampur Vill. Niyawali, Bareilly (U.P.) Sambhal – 244 302 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan :Aagfs7012N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V. Rajakumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263

verification of cash deposited during demonetization period and high value receipt of cash shown from third parties in response data. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee along with questionnaires

Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1), Delhi

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

ITA 291/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 120(5)Section 124(3)Section 127Section 127(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

assessee submitted that the assessment proceedings were initiated originally by ITO, Ward 39(4), Delhi by issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ITA No.291/DEL/2025 (for short ‘the Act’) on 16.08.2018 along with notice u/s 142(1) dated 14.08.2019. The notices are placed

Sneh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-32(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

ITA 3928/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 54F

total income and (b) large investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income including exempt income and agricultural income. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) along with questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee ... scrutiny under the category of limited scrutiny. This fact is established from the assessment order and also the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the CBDT issued the instructions relied upon by the 5 assessee and for the sake

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Haryana

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

ITA 3489/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Circle 7 (1), Vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.1, Subplot 4, 5, 8 & 9 Msil, Supplier Park, Phase 3A, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon – 1222 050 (Haryana). (Pan :Aabcf1682P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Nfac Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Amounting To Rs.5,90,59,019/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Loss On Account Of Plant & Machinery.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR

Rajesh Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward-1 Rewa, Rewa

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 129/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

considered to be the return filed in response to notice under section 148. Thereafter, the ld. AO issued notices under section 143(2) / 142(1) asking the assessee to explain the issue. The ld. AO records that there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the various

Rajesh Singh, Rewa vs. ITO Ward -1, Rewa

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 128/JAB/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Devendra Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

considered to be the return filed in response to notice under section 148. Thereafter, the ld. AO issued notices under section 143(2) / 142(1) asking the assessee to explain the issue. The ld. AO records that there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the various

Smt. Sheetal Rashmin Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The I. T. O. Ward-2, Gandhidham

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

ITA 182/RJT/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 253(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DIESH MOHAN SINHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 366/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 364/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Dr Kondabolu Basavapunaiah & Dr Lakshmi Prasad Trust, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Guntur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250

scrutiny under CASS in order to verify the sale of shares, securities or other property to Specified Persons. Accordingly, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, from the perusal of the Audit

Ramesh Potnuru, Srikakulam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Srikakulam

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

ITA 317/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Smt. VRSK ManojnaFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, SR-DR
Section 143(2)

assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for examining the cash deposited during the year in his bank account. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued on 13.08.2018. However, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Assessing

Subbarao Jaladi, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 296/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 296/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Subbarao Jaladi V. Income Tax Officer-Ward-2(1) Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 3-34 Pasumarru Village Chilakuluripet Mandal Guntur District Chilakaluripet – 522616 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Actpj9648L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

limited scrutiny through CASS on the issue of cash deposits. Accordingly, Page No. 2 I.T.A. No. 296/VIZ/2025 Subbarao Jaladi statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Upon examination of the material placed on record, it was observed that

Nakka Kasivisweswara Rao, East Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 278/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 278/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Nakka Kasivisweswara Rao V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Income Tax Office #7-155 Aayakar Bhavan Kadiyapulanka Village Veerabhadrapuram Kadiyam Mandal Kambala Cheruvu East Godavari District-533126 Rajahmundry-533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aenpn2596K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Rs.22,26,289/- as exempt. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In order to verify the genuineness of the agricultural income declared

Yash Infratech, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow

ITA 513/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Yash Infratech V. The Acit A-78, Indira Nagar Range 1 Lucknow (U.P) Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabfy1381R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yash

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Tamanna Commosales Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1492/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata.…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Tamanna Commosales Pvt. Ltd………………….………...……...…..…..Respondent B-2/2, Gillander House, Kol- 1. [Pan: Aaect0756H] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sujay Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 19, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

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

Megnanapuram Paccs, Tiruchendur vs. PCIT, Madurai

ITA 895/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:895/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society 4/40, Megnanapuram Tiruchendur Road, Tiruchendur Thoothukudi – 628 210. [Pan: Aabam-9847-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit Vs. Madurai - I (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pcit, Madurai - 1, For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Vide Order Dated 17.03.2025. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P

deduction in terms of Section 80P of the Act aggregating to Rs.10,91,802/-. Thereafter the AO had issued notice in terms of Section 143(2) of the Act on 22.05.2023 and notice(s) u/s.142(1) of the Act on multiple dates, calling for details in support claim of deduction

Krishnamoorthy Vijayaraghavan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1976/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1976/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Krishnamoorthy The Income Tax Officer, Vijayaraghavan, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), 2A, Tulive Antara, Chennai. Old No.4, New No.9, Karpagambal Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Acppv 0131J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54(2)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Maharaja Agrasen Urban Co Op Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubballi

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

ITA 210/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Sharadamba Enterprises, Hubli vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hubballi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for defective presentation and also for non-prosecution

ITA 1407/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

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

Smt. Sharada, Legal Heir of Late Shri. Muttegere Javaregowda Appaji., Shimoga vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (4)., Queens Road, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2098/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Smt. Sharada, Vs. Dcit, Legal Heir Of Late Shri. Muttegere Central Circle – 1(4), Javaregowda Appaji, Bangalore. Jq 1, New Town, Bhardravathi, Shimoga, Bhadravathi H.O 577 301, Karnataka. Pan : Apkpa 7777 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balram R Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132oSection 142(1)Section 153C

other person. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel also stated that no notice has been issued to the assessee under section 143(2) of the Act. Therefore, AO had no jurisdiction to pass the Order. In this regard, we noted that the AO has observed that assessee ... mrntioned in the said notice. Once there is no valid return filed by the assessee there is no need to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Even in case of return filed under section 153A/153C of the Act, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case