← 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)

M/S Om Namah Shivay Trading Company, Paraola vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 511/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

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

Mohan Babu Budubudukala, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 3/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mohan Babu Vs. The Dcit, Budubudukala, Central Circle – 2(1), Plot No.50, Ntr Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad, Telangana – 500046. Pan : Curpb1240C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 131Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 15CSection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Skybridge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, (Tp)-2 Hyderbad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 154Section 253(1)(d)Section 270A

143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act on 24.08.2022. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 28.06.2022, to which the assessee responded on 15.07.2023. Thereafter, a reference under section 92CA(1) was made to the Transfer Pricing

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg)(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1009/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

return was processed under section 143(1) on 10.03.2019. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were served upon the assessee company. The assessee company is engaged in the business of Mining Engineers and Contractors. During the course of the hearing

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) (P)Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1008/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

return was processed under section 143(1) on 10.03.2019. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were served upon the assessee company. The assessee company is engaged in the business of Mining Engineers and Contractors. During the course of the hearing

I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Mangalvani Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 785/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 785/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), M/S. Mangalvani Commercial Pvt. Kolkata Vs Ltd. 2B, Grant Lane Room No.-4K Kolkata - 700012 [Pan: Aaccl2310D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kiran Chatrapoty, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/01/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 24/08/2022, 01/09/2022, 11/10/2022 & 01/08/2023. No Compliance Was Made Even When Notices Were Sent Through Rpad. Even Today Also There Is No Representation. It, Therefore, Seems That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Pursue This Appeal. We, Therefore Decide To Adjudicate The Issue Raised In The Instant Appeal On The Basis Of The Available Records & Hearing The Departmental Representative. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Chatrapoty, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Sullia Taluk Women'S Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Sullia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

ITA 322/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit Bapu, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Pilani Industrial Corporation Limited, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Circle-21(2), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1606/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 Pilani Industrial Vs. Acit, Circle-21(2) Corporation Limited, Delhi. Vidya Vihar, Pilani Rajasthan 333031 Pan Aaacp5000C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Ganatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

14th October, 2017 declaring income of Rs. 32,89,510/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 24.09.2018 under section 143(2) was issued. Learned ACIT (“AO”) passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act made disallowance of Rs. 65,49,189/- under section

Society for Human Transformtion & Research, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 4417/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)

under: “Return of income was filed on 29/09/2014 declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) dated 28/08/2015 was issued. The assessee is society which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is also registered under section 12A vide

Society for Human Transformtion & Research, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 4416/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)

under: “Return of income was filed on 29/09/2014 declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) dated 28/08/2015 was issued. The assessee is society which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is also registered under section 12A vide

Ykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Signature Tower – A, Circle – 4(1) 14Th Floor, South City New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana Pan No. Aaacy 0460 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajkumar, C.A. Shri J. P. Sharma, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.1020/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Gurgaon In Appeal No. 314/17-18 Dated 20.11.2018 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 14.12.2017 By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). 2

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)

supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1-4-2011.” 6. In the instant case, the notice under section 143(2) of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 12.04.2016 by ITO Ward 6 27(4), Delhi. In July, 2016, the ITO transferred ... memo is enclosed in page 5 of the paper book. After the transfer of jurisdiction from ITO to DCIT, no fresh notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by ACIT, Circle 4(1), Gurgaon. The assessment was ultimately framed under section 143

Balwinder Singh Bajwa, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sunam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Tara Elctro Appliances Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 80/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Tara Electro

Rajankumar Vikrambhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Anand

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

ITA 112/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2012-13 Rajankumar The

Shama Ajay Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(It & Tp), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shama Ajay Patel, Vs. 2, Chandroday Society, The Cit(It & Tp), Opp. Golden Triangle, Sp Ahmedabad Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Alxpp 5273 E अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. "Cit(It & Tp)" For Short] Dated 08.02.2023, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit (It & Tp) Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Jurisdiction & Appropriate Powers Available Under The Act. It Is Submitted That The Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As A.O. Has Neither Committed Any Error Nor It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Be Held Now.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 147Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

Bindu Salesh Viswambharan, Dombivili (E) vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 1065/PUN/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1065/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bindu Salesh Viswambharan, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Kalyan. A-5, Krishna Niwas, Chiplunkar Road, Ramnagar- 421201. Pan : Aknps5156Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hitesh P. Shah Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.08.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Hon. C1T(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Appellant Could Not Represent Her Case Due To Circumstances Beyond Her Control. 2 The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.77.94,000/- U/S.69A Of The Income Tax Act, Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

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

Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. DCIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 666/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. DCIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 665/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Parveen Tayal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

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

ITA 1563/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh

Section 132(1)(A)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT