← 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)

Kishor Jethalal Morbia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 582/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 250Section 51

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

Amol Ceramica Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9.1.2, Churchgate

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

ITA 2013/MUM/2025[21017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailamol Ceramica Pvt. Ltd., 355, Powai Plaza, Hiranandani Garden Powai, Mumbai - 400076 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaaca4899G V/S Ito – 9(1)(2), 205, Aaykar Bhawan, ……………… Respondent M.K. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai - 400020 Assessee By : Shri R.S. Sharma Revenue By : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

under section 115JB of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In its return of income, the assessee declared that it has deposited cash of ₹ 29 Lakh

ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati vs. Arman Ali, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 79/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: GAUHATI BENCH: GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, HON

Geeta Prints Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Surat.

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

ITA 1322/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1322/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Geeta Prints Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 150, Gidc, Pandesara, Vs. Ward -1(1)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat-394 221 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg 88182R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 249Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Tenali

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 80C

admitting an income of Rs.2,67,690/- on 05.05.2022. The case was later transferred to the Faceless Assessment Unit and thereafter notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 19.06.2023 and notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 21.06.2023 was issued and served on the assessee calling

Varatharaj Venugopal, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupur

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

ITA 1058/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1058/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Varatharaj Venugopal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 13, Thiruvalluvar Nagar 4Th St., Ward 1(1), Nesavalar Colony, East P.N. Road, Tiruppur. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan:Aylpv5231F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghavan, Advocate (Virtual) For Shri R.C. Sachin, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan, Advocate (virtual) for Shri R.C. Sachin, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

filed revised return of income on 17.05.2022 admitting total income of ₹.4,34,460/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued various statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notice under section 144 of the Act dated 16.01.2024 and another show cause

A One Sizing Works, Bhiwandi vs. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 3, Thane

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6458/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 A One Sizing Works, The Asst. Cit Central Circle 3, House No. 1237, Opp. Ganesh 12, A Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Compound, Behind Mahakali Vs. Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Dyeing Narpoli, Industrial Estate, Bhiwandi-421302. Thane West-400604. Pan No. Aajfa 6696 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Simran DhawanFor Respondent: 16/06/2025
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

dispute that the limitation for search, i.e., 27.11.2019. It is not in dispute that the limitation for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) had already expired in issuance of notice under Section 143(2) had already expired in issuance of notice under Section 143(2) had already expired ... notice under were within the limitation period for issuance of notice under were within the limitation period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2), and hence are to be treated as ion 143(2), and hence are to be treated as abated abated assessments. 4.3 Accordingly, in the case

Singal and Sons Construction Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 4, Hisar

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 264/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansingal & Sons Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 4, Behind Sbi Main Branch, Hisar. Delhi Road, Hisar – 125 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccs0362C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 10.07.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)) Dated 06.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.5,90,940/- On 29.10.2017 For The Ay 2017-18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass. Accordingly, Notices

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 43B

Rs.5,90,940/- on 29.10.2017 for the AY 2017-18. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices 2 under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee

Sincerely Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 23(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 8728/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4063/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Karl Storz Endoscopy Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2) India Pvt. Ltd. D-181, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area , Phase-1 New Delhi- 110020 Pan :Aaack4816D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

ITA No.4063/Del/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 M/s. Karl Storz Endoscopy Vs. ITO 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “I

Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.664/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Kajal Nimishbhai Sinojia Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-21 Shreeji Haridwar Society,Nr Ito Ward – 1(1)(1), Gokuldham, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360004 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bsups2455J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 69C

part of the assessee for not appearing on the different dates of hearing before the Assessing Officer in response to notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, we find that the default is same and, therefore, penalty of Rs.20,000/- could be imposed for the first default ... assessee in this regard. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed for each and every notice issued under Section 143(2), which remained not complied with on the part of the assessee. The provision of Section 271(1)(b) is of deterrent nature

Seastem Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT Cir - 1, Jamnagar

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

ITA 334/RJT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 334/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Seastem Limited, Jamnagar Vs. Acit, Cir-1, Jamnagar 1 Avani Appartment, - Sarusection Road Income Tax Office, Jamnagar – 361001 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahcs9428G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 271B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Pramod Kumar Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

case laws: CIT vs Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC) “Since the facts on record are clear that no notice under section 143(2) was ever issued by the department, the findings rendered by the High Court and the Tribunal and the conclusion arrived at were correct. There ... Court” PCIT vs Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. (Delhi HC) in ITA 887/2017 & ITA 888/2017 vide order dated 24.10.2017: “The wording of Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act, which is applicable in the present case, requires the AO to be satisfied on examining the return filed that prima facie

Vtl Investments Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Circle 1, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1109/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gupta, Advocate and Shri Rishav Dhingra, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Assessment Year 2017–18 declaring nil income under normal provisions. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and notice under Section 143(2) was issued. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had made substantial investments amounting to Rs.38.72 crore

Gujarat State Police Housing Corpn. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 575/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 575/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Gujarat State Police Housing The Deputy बनामVs. Corporation Limited, Commissioner Of B/H Lokayukta Bhavan, Income Tax, Chh Road, Gandhinagar Circle, Sector10/B, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar-382010. Pan: Aaacg5532C

For Appellant: Shri S N Divetia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ , अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] BEFORE Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Disha Resources Ltd. (Formerly Known As Arihant Avenues and Credit Limited.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 535/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Disha Resources Ltd. (Formerly Known As Arihant Avenues and Credit Limited.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 534/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Nirmalabai F. Jalnapure, Pune vs. Asst. Unit Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 798/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.798/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Vs Asst. Unit Nirmalabai F. Jalnapure, Flat No. B/2, Priyanka Income Tax, Residency, Opp. Pmc Pune School, Hadapsar, Pune- 41128 Maharashtra Pan-Azipj3217D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Mr. Vijay Ashok Jeswant, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panvel

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

ITA 1270/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan, Tax PractitionerFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1270/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year

Naveen Kumar Kaparthy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 415/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar J. Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ SM-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री