← 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)

Ushaben Maganbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5) Now Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 210/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50Section 54BSection 54FSection 69A

under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee submitted her return of income dated 25.04.2018 declaring total income at Rs.40,120/-. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 21.06.2018 was served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.11

Shree Alekh, Bhavnagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

total income at Rs.3,14,31,850/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny by issuance of statutory notice dated 05.09.2018 under Section 143(2) of the Act and various details were called for by the Assessing Officer from time to time which was furnished by the assessee. Eventually

Adarsh Global Trades and Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 70/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Adarsh Global Trades & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Private Limited, Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aakca7278H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr 04.03.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sesha Srinivas, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Balasingam Somasundaram, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1200/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

admitting total income of Rs. 36,30,130/-. Thereafter, notice under ITA Nos.1199 & 1200/Chny/2023 section 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 03-12-2021 in response to which the assessee submitted the details. It was the submission of the assessee that he has not maintained proper books

Balasingam Somasundaram, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1199/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

admitting total income of Rs. 36,30,130/-. Thereafter, notice under ITA Nos.1199 & 1200/Chny/2023 section 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 03-12-2021 in response to which the assessee submitted the details. It was the submission of the assessee that he has not maintained proper books

Jayaraj Gunasekaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1193/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1193/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayaraj Gunasekaran, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.18, Reddy Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-10(1), Villivakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 049. [Pan: Afapg-7047-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Harshavardhan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Harshavardhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद

M/S.Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

before the CIT(A). No such new stand has been raised. The stand taken by the assessee after receipt of the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 02.9.2014 has been consistent i.e. before the Assessing Officer while submitting the reply to the penalty notice, in the appeal ... able to explain the transaction even at the first instance i.e. while submitting the reply dated 15.3.2016 in response to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, which explanation he maintained till he filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, on facts, the decision

M/S Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

before the CIT(A). No such new stand has been raised. The stand taken by the assessee after receipt of the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 02.9.2014 has been consistent i.e. before the Assessing Officer while submitting the reply to the penalty notice, in the appeal ... able to explain the transaction even at the first instance i.e. while submitting the reply dated 15.3.2016 in response to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, which explanation he maintained till he filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, on facts, the decision

Gopal Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vishnu Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S, Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 53(2)Section 53C

erred in not quashing the entire assessment proceeding being unlawful and illegal having been completed without issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the income tax Act 1961 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in giving a finding that ... cannot be taken to be the price for which the property is purchased. Ground No. 5 Assessment made without issuing of notice under section 143(2) of the income tax Act 1961 The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon 321ITR 362 (Supreme Court

Mahapalika Kshetra Madhyamik Shikshak Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit (Co-Operative Credit Society), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3810/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhmahapalika Kshetra Vs. Ito Ward 22(2)(1) Madhyamik Shikshak Piramal Chambers, Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mumbai - 400012 Maryadit (Co-Operative Credit Society) 201/202 Anish Tower, Senapati Bapat Marg Matunga (West)- 400016 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaam1865G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Amit Bharadiya Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 25.08.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Action Of The Learned Cit (A) In Disallowing The Deduction U/S 80P(2) (A) (I) Of Rs. 41,55,200 As Claimed By The Appellant Is Erroneous & Bad In Law. 2. The Action Of The Learned Cit (A) Of Assessing The Income From Interest On Fixed Deposit & Dividend Income Of Rs. 41,55,200 U/S 80 P (2) (D) Instead Of Section 80 P (2) (A) (I) Is Erroneous & Bad In Law. 3. The Action Of The Learned Cit (A) By Not Considering The Itat, Mumbai Order Already Decided In Favour Of The Appellant In A.Y.2014-15 On The Same Matter Is Erroneous & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Amit BharadiyaFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

P a g e | 1 Mahapalika Kshetra Madhyamik Shikshak Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Vs. ITO, Ward 22(2)(1) IN

Indian Beauty & Hygiene Association, Mumbai vs. ITO E-1 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3804/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

Page 1 ITA No.3804/Mum/2023 Indian Beauty& Hygiene Association Vs. ITO(E) 1(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC

Chhotelal Gangaprasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3728/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhchhotelal Gangaprasad Vs. Acit 24(1) Dubey, 1005, Blue 6Th Floor, Piramal Mountain, Shastri Nagar, Chambers, Lalgaug, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400013 Mumbai – 400 058 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaepd9496P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Aditya Maheshwari Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 30.08.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Action Of Income Tax Officer Of Adopting Deemed Rent Of Let Out Property At Rs.10,23,000 Without Considering The Facts That Property Was Not Lying Vacant. Due To Acute Financial Problem At The End Of Tenant, Rent Could Not Be Recovered. More Over The Tenant Has Also Not Claimed Any Expenses On Account Of Rent For The Same. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Actions Of Income Tax Officer Without Considering Written Submissions & Details Filed By The Ar Of Assessee On 24Th November 2022.” 2. Fact In Brief Is That Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,50,770/- Was Filed On 27.10.2018. The Revised Return Of Income

For Appellant: Aditya MaheshwariFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(4)Section 23(4)(C)

P a g e | 1 Chhotelal Gangaprasad Dubey Vs. ACIT-24(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 840/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

declaring a total income of Rs.1382,57,02,410. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (‘AO”) vide order dated 19/12/2016 passed under section

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed holding that the learned CIT appeal is correct in allowing

ITA 269/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

declaring a total income of Rs.1382,57,02,410. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 19/12/2016 passed under section

M/S Crown Milk Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. JCIT, OSD, Cl-4(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 250/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 43B

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

Dipti Srivastwa, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-34(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1422/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1422/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dipti Srivastwa Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 34(3), Kolkata Room No. 422, Centre Point 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani 4Th Floor Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Biqps1509F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre - Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/10/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.89,10,000/-. 2. That The Appellant Had Already Stated That The Said Figure Was Erroneously Shown & Even The Facts As Admitted By The Ld. Cit(Appeal) Confirm That There Was No Such Income. 3. That The Additions Made Are Against Law & Facts. 4. That The Appellant Prays For Deleting The Additions Made.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

M/S. Jain Farms & Resorts Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Smt Sheetal BorkarFor Respondent: Sri V Parithivel
Section 250

30/09/2012 declaring a total income of Rs.37,59,400. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act M/s. Jain Farms Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Jain Farms & Resorts Ltd ITA No. 03/Bang./2024

M/S. Jain Farms Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Smt Sheetal BorkarFor Respondent: Sri V Parithivel
Section 250

30/09/2012 declaring a total income of Rs.37,59,400. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act M/s. Jain Farms Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Jain Farms & Resorts Ltd ITA No. 03/Bang./2024

Sri. Mohammadali Thayalepurayil, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 13/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 264Section 68

individual, filed the return of income on 27.07.2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,62,500/-. Assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 26.08.2011. In spite of the notice under section 143(2) of the Act and several notices issued under ... instant case has been completed under section 144 of the Act, since assessee did not respond to the several notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Assessee in the statement of facts filed before the CIT(A) had detailed the reasons for non-appearance before