← 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)

Syed Salahuddin, Chennai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Non-Corp, Ward 3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 4086/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:4086/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Syed Salahuddin, The Income Tax Officer, No.15/8, Greams Road, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), So Gulam Abbas Ali Khan, Chennai. 3Rd Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Akips 7374P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bharat Janarthanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Arron Prasad, Addl.Cit (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai Dated 29.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. :- 2 -: 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Order Passed By The First Appellate Authority (Faa) Is Ex-Parte, Since There Was No Compliance From The Assessee To Six Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Janarthanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arron Prasad, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

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

Witmer Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3840/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3840/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Witmer Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 86, Vasanth Business Centre, Corporate Ward 3(3), Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacw6606P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri Y. Sridhar, C.A. Requested To Take Up Ground No. 3 As Preliminary Issue For Adjudication As It Goes To The Root Of The Matter. Having No Objection From The Ld. Dr Ms. Gouthami

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 4

submits that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the reassessment, which was completed without jurisdiction as no valid notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was issued or served on the assessee, which is mandatory in reassessment proceedings. The ld. AR drew ... attention to para 10 of the impugned order and argued that the ld. CIT(A) without considering the statutory provision, held notice under section 143(2) of the Act can be issued only when the assessee files return of income. He vehemently argued that the said findings is incorrect

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem vs. Ravishankar, Salem

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

ITA 2626/CHNY/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy, S.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2626/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ravishankar, Income Tax, 735, Lrc Abarana Maaligai, Circle 1, Bazaar Street, Attur Tk, Salem. Salem 636 102. [Pan: Aahhr5519N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 55 Days. The Dcit Circle 1, Salem Filed A Condonation Petition For The Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Dcit Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69B

issue are that the assessee is an HUF and filed return of income declaring income of ₹.5,88,09,370/-. Statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] were issued. According to the Assessing Officer, a survey under section

Shilpa Shetty Kundra, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

ITA 996/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv. & RaviFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR. D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI PRABHASH

Maharashtra Maritime Board, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Exem. Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 8938/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Maharashtra Maritime Board, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Exem. Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 8937/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Maharashtra Maritime Board, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Exem. Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 8936/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Nathan Anil Rao, Mumbai vs. The ITO -Circle 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8666/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Soni, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny Income Tax Act which was the beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny assessment under sectio assessment under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act which was on account n 143(2) of the Income Tax Act which was on account of CASS reason

Bharat Thakarshi Mamania, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 8510/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

with section 147 of the Act. It is submitted that In the said assessment order, the Ld. AO recorded that a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 31/03/2018, and that the reasons recorded for reopening were communicated to the 3 I.T.A. No. 8510/Mum/2025 assessee vide letter dated 15/10/2018 ... However, the Ld.AR contends that the assessee neither received the notice under section 143(2) nor the recorded reasons for reopening was ever served upon him. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee further pointed out that while at one place in the assessment order it is mentioned that the assessee

Sujata Prakash Jawale, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7572/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 7572/Mum/2025 Assessment Year

Apcotex Industries Limited, Raigarh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed

ITA 6023/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 6023/Mum/2025 Assessment Year

Getinge Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai Maharashtra

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Rahul Aggarwal, India vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(3), Civic Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 6053/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrahul Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, 7708 (77 Avenue), Ward-30(3), Second Floor, Dlf Phase-Iv, Vs. Delhi. Gurugram-122009, Haryana. Pan-Ahcpa7394J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mahna, Adv. & Shri Narender Goel, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 08.08.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 17.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,08,280/- Which Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass-2018Cycle On The Reason Of “Credit Card Payments”. Rahul Aggarwal Vs. Ito

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

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

Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association, Gurgaon vs. ITO-Ward 1(5), Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4145/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

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

Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association, Gurgaon vs. ITO-Ward 1(5)-Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4144/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

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

Navdeep Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 13, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 401/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 40Section 68

401/DEL/2021 Navdeep Singh vs DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Vaneet Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

ITA No. 2607/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

Payal Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 41(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1254/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

assessee constitutes Income from LTCG and Income from Other Sources. The case was selected under limited scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee. 4. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that during

The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 44C

revised return was filed at the total income of Rs.1167,35,32,730/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 04-09-2014 was issued to the assessee. 2.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee had received an amount

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Sudharshna Arora, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

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