← 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)

Bank of Nova Scotia, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3566/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 135Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 80G

total income of ₹69,78,46,870/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the act. 2.1. During the assessment proceedings the Ld. AO observed that assessee disallowed ₹82,00,000/- under section

Vishwa Glass and Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.C. ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, CIT-DR
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

original return of income. After considering the details and submissions filed by the assessee, in response to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 29.03.2022 passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act assessed

Vishwa Glass and Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2546/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.C. ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, CIT-DR
Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

notice, the assessee filed its return of income declaring similar income as originally returned. Subsequently, in response to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed its submissions along with other supporting documents. In the absence of any documentary evidence

ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi vs. Vgrm Infrastructure & Amusement P.Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4877/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukriti Information Systems (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1991/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

dispose of the appeal which should be decided first even prior to other grounds. 4. The appellant has contended that no notice under section 143(2) was received or served upon the assessee within the statutory time limit i.e. 30.09.2013 relevant to AY 2012-13. In the absence ... valid notice under section 143(2), the assessment order passed in the absence of proper service of notice is illegal and void. It is also submitted that the assessee company has not received notice dated 23.09.2013 issued u/s. 143(2) of as stated in the assessment order

Subodh Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1264/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

ITA No. 1264/DEL/2014 [A.Y. 2010-11] CEVA Freight LLC Vs. The Dy. D.I.T IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

Smt. Dayawanti, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1639/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, Vs Acit, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Central Circle-7, Extension, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi Pan-Abjps6408A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, Vs Dcit, 6, Link Road, Jangpura Central Circle-7, Extension, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi Pan-Abjps6408A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.12.2016 & 30.12.2016 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-25, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.14/15-16/21/16-17 & Appeal No.278/15-16/28/16-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Penalty Order Dated 21.09.2015 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S 274 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Respectively.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ITA No.1646 & 1639/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL

Dolphin Promoters and Builders, Raipur vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Raipur

ITA 58/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 68Section 801B(10)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी रिवश सूद, "ाियक सद" एवं

Rajendra Agrawal, Biroli Bazar vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Purnea, Purnia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.422/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajendra Agrawal.……………….....…..…………………....Appellant New Sipahi Tola, Maranga Road, Bihar – 85301. [Pan: Aqhpa2439E] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Purnia....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 18 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Farming Activities. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(c)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Dileep Kumar Sah, Siwan vs. ITO Ward2(3), Siwan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.367/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dileep Kumar Sah……………….....…..…………………....Appellant Makhdoom Sarai, Turha Toli, Siwan, Bihar-841226. [Pan: Gvnps8999L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siwan....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 134 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Declared His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 At

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Nehal Ahmed, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle- 4, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 365/PAT/2024[A.Y. 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.365/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Nehal Ahmed..………………..….....…..…………………....Appellant House No – B/15, New Azimabad Colony (East), Sector-B, Sandalpur, Mahendru, Patna- 800006. [Pan: Aerpa2555B] Vs. Acit, Circle-4, Patna……..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Earned Income From Civil Contract. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Declaring An Income Of Rs.10,58,610/-. The Assessee Initially Had Filed Return Of Income U/S 139(9) Of The Act & Subsequently Revised It Declaring The Same Income. The Assessee Disclosed Income From Contractual Receipt Amounting To Rs.92,51,630/- & Declared Taxable Income U/S 44Ad On Presumptive Basis At Rs.9,25,163/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Jivachh Yadav, Saharsa, Bihar vs. CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 338/PAT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.338/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jivachh Yadav.………………..….....…..…………………....Appellant P.O & P.S Chandrayan, Nawhatta, Bihar-852201. [Pan: Ahfpy6939A] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Nfac, Delhi..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 116 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Retail Business Of Fertilizer & Seeds. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act For The Relevant Assessment

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Sureshchand Lakhmichand Jain, Basoda vs. Income Tax Officer, Vidisha

Appeal is allowed partly

ITA 545/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sureshchand Lakhmichand Ito, Vidisha Jain, 19, M/S. Suresh Chand Adesh बनाम Kumar, / Sironj Road, Gandhi Chowk Vs. Ganj Basoda (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Admpj6555G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2025

Section 115Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Shree Jeenshashan Seva Shiksha Sanskar Sankul Trust, Ujjain vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ujjain

Appeal is allowed

ITA 288/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Date Of Hearing” 2. The Background Facts Leading To Present Appeal Are Such That The Ao

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Ascent Buildhome Developers Limited, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 846/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 395/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 263

notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 24/08/2018 declaring salary income of Rs. 1,56,000/-. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith detailed questionnaire were issued and after taking into consideration the submissions/explanation and documentation filed by the assessee from time to time

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 394/CHANDI/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 263

notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 24/08/2018 declaring salary income of Rs. 1,56,000/-. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith detailed questionnaire were issued and after taking into consideration the submissions/explanation and documentation filed by the assessee from time to time

Sshri Kuldip Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 103/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kuldeep Singh, Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, 2010, बनाम Chandigarh Sec 21-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bllps7083L अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee U/S 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Herein Referred To As ‘The Act’] Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Rev/F/ Revs/ 250 /2020-21/1031467646 (1) Dated 14.03.2021 Of Ld. Pcit, Chandigarh-1 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Relevant A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 253Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Tulsi Reality, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 134/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.134/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulsi Reality The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ G5 Anand Deep Complex Vadodara – 390 007 V/S. Gotri Road (Gujarat) Gotri, Vadodara – 390 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafft 8908 B (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 12.12.2019. Tulsi Reality Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 37(1)

declaring a total income of Rs.61,29,690/-. The case was selected as a compulsory scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 20.09.2018, followed by a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. A survey under Section 133A

Pimprad Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Society, Satara vs. ACIT Circle Satara, Satara

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

ITA 19/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

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