← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)2,323 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)(a)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

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. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

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 Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

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.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)(a)

Fule Shahu Ambedkar Z P Karmachari Sah Pat Sanstha, Washim vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Akola

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 68/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

ADIT in ITA No. 422/NAG/2022, dated 22/03/2024 holding that prior to amendment brought in Finance Act, 2021, amending sub-clause (v) of section 143(1)(a), CPC was not vested with the powers to make disallowance u/s. 80AC of the Act denying deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on account

Rohit Kumar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. the United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1130/KOL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2024-25 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd.…….....……...…..…..Respondent 1St Floor, Chartered Bank Building, 4, Netaji Subhash Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaact4947L] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri J P Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2024–25. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 11.10.2024 Claiming A Refund Of Rs.15,61,200/- Pursuant To Set-Off Of Brought Forward Business Loss Against The Returned Income. Intimation Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Directly Passed On 01.11.2024, Assessing A Refund Of Rs.16,22,410/- & Allowing Setoff Of Brought Forward Loss Against Income As Done In The Return Of Income. However, The Order Did Not Capture The Schedule Of Carry Forward Business Loss & Unabsorbed Depreciation For Earlier Years. M/S The United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Above Order, The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Observing As Under:

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

case are similar and the adjustment made by the CPC was not upheld. It is clearly stated in 1st proviso to Section 143(1) (a) that no adjustment can be made without providing notice for adjustment either physically or electronically, but in case of the appellant no such notice ... United Provinces Sugar Company Pvt. Ltd present case, no show cause notice was issued to the assessee in terms of first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued by the CPC before carrying out the adjustment. We note that in this case, the assessee had filed

Rohan Atul Khadilkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 13(1), Pune

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

ITA 1200/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1200/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 90

same can be filed the subsequent to the passing of assessment order. 12. Further, in the present case, the intimation under section 143(1) was issued on 26.03.2021, but the FTC was filed on 02.02.2021. Thus, the respondent is supposed to have provided the due credit

Hira Manek Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 8500/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

Amount (Rs.) 3 Mumbai District Central Cooperative 3,456/- Bank Limited (MDCC) - Saving Bank Interest Total 1,79,222/- 2. Improper Disallowance under Section 143(1): The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the CPC has no jurisdiction to make any such adjustment u/s 143(1 ... provision and before passing Order u/s. 143(1) the proposed adjustments were not intimated to the Appellant as envisaged by the Proviso of Section 143(1)(a). 3. Erroneous Interpretation of Section 80P(2)(d): The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that interest income earned by the Appellant from

Hira Manek Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 8499/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

Amount (Rs.) 3 Mumbai District Central Cooperative 3,456/- Bank Limited (MDCC) - Saving Bank Interest Total 1,79,222/- 2. Improper Disallowance under Section 143(1): The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the CPC has no jurisdiction to make any such adjustment u/s 143(1 ... provision and before passing Order u/s. 143(1) the proposed adjustments were not intimated to the Appellant as envisaged by the Proviso of Section 143(1)(a). 3. Erroneous Interpretation of Section 80P(2)(d): The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that interest income earned by the Appellant from

Vishva Kalyan Foundation, Surendranagar vs. ITO Ward 2 Exempetion Ahmedabad, Ahmedaabd

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1992/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, SR-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

Processing Centre processed the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The CPC, Bengaluru, however, while issuing intimation dated 30-11-2021 under section 143(1) of the Act, denied the exemption claimed under sections 11 and 12 of the Act solely on the ground that Form ... both the return of income and Form No. 10B were e-filed on 30-03-2021. The return was processed under section 143(1) only on 30-11-2021, much after Form No. 10B had already been uploaded and was available on the Departmental system. The assessee filed rectification applications

Ravikiran Gopalrao Alavandi, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 2939/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2939/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Anup Shaha
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 90

same can be filed the subsequent to the passing of assessment order. 12. Further, in the present case, the intimation under section 143(1) was issued on 26.03.2021, but the FTC was filed on 02.02.2021. Thus, the respondent is supposed to have provided the due credit

Mahaveer Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Amalner vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2228/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

filed Valid ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act, hence, the deduction is not allowable to the appellant. As per the provision of section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, no deduction under chapter VIA is allowable if the return of income is furnished beyond the due date specified ... brought on record any contrary decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. 9. Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the decision relying on Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. In this case, order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of 9 ITA Nos.2227 & 2228/PUN/2025 [A] the Act, was passed. Also

Mahaveer Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Amalner vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2227/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

filed Valid ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act, hence, the deduction is not allowable to the appellant. As per the provision of section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, no deduction under chapter VIA is allowable if the return of income is furnished beyond the due date specified ... brought on record any contrary decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. 9. Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the decision relying on Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. In this case, order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of 9 ITA Nos.2227 & 2228/PUN/2025 [A] the Act, was passed. Also

Grindwell Norton Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax - 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3656/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

1. The Centralized Processing Center erred in making an adjustment of Rs.5,23,94, 136 to the Returned Income vide the intimation under section 143(1). 2. The Centralized Processing Center erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 143(1) by ignoring the reply filed by the Appellant. 2 Grindwell Norton

Alaknanda Associates, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(4), Meerut

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

ITA 5452/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2018-19 Ms. Alaknanda Associates, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 00, Shivam Complex, Ward-1(1)(4), Nateshpuram, Kanker-Khera, Meerut Meerut - 250001 Pan No. Aaofm3000C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

arising out of order dated 10.12.2019 of Learned Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO") passed under section 143(1) of the Act for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of case are that the return of income was by the appellant/assessee declaring ... income of Rs.47,83,880/- claiming a refund of Rs.26,09,120/-. Notice under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued for variance of Rs.2,03,32,680/- duly replied having claimed the liability of PF as also of ESI since deposited within the time provided under Section

Itron India Private Limited, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2828/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Manish Agarwalitron India Private Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-10(1) C-7, Sector-3, Gautam Cr Building , Ip Estate, Budh Nagar, Noida, New Delhi – 110002 Uttar Pradesh – 201301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs6575L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 11Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144B

held that., “The assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 while filing the Rol. The said exemption was denied vide the intimation under Section 143(1). The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the said intimation. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny ... assessment order under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that in the present case the intimation under Section 143(1) of the IT Act merges with the assessment order under Section 143(3), the said intimation becomes inoperative. Therefore, the appeal filed against such

Kota Trucks P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 14(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2050/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Kota Trucks P. Ltd. Vs. Acit Bg-223, Sanjay Gandhi Circle -14(2) Transport Nagar, Gt New Delhi Karnal Road, New Delhi- 110042 Pan No.Aadck3550H Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Pratap Gupta, Ca (Virtual) Respondent Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 583723/ made by Id DCIT (CPC) under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act which was beyond the powers of DCIT(CPC) for making the adjustment of deemed income ... justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of assessing officer in making the addition/adjustment under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act which was outside the purview of adjustment u/s 143(1) and powers of DCIT(CPC) for which no notice

Shree Bilimora Vibhag Anavil Mandal Nutan Park, Shanti Niketan Society Mororji Desai Marg Bilimora Na vs. Ari, Navsarivs.CIT(Exemption), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 11/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Shree Bilimora Vibhag Anavil Mandal Nutan Park, Shanti Niketan Society, Morarji Desai Marg Bilimora Na vs. Ari, Navsarivs.CIT(Exemption), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 10/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Cone Craft Paper Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Delhi

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

ITA 3592/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

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

O.K. Auto Components Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 3584/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

1)(va) of the Act without passing a speaking order. It is alleged that the said adjustment was beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of the Act and was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Ld. CIT(A) while relying the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate ... Services Pvt Ltd. (supra) is not an issue involved in present case, as the question involved herein was quite different as to whether Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act of 1961 can be resorted to when there is highly debatable issue. Therefore, the case laws relied upon

Sisotiya Educational Society, Jaipur vs. Exemptions Ward Faridabad, Faridabad

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

ITA 2288/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Punia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(A)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI

Sisotiya Educational Society, Jaipur vs. Exemptions Ward Faridabad, Faridabad

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

ITA 2260/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Punia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(A)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI

Mahender Malik, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward -(1), Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5586/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Mahender Malik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 388, Satroad Khurad, Near Ward-1, Adarsh High School, Hisar Hisar Pan: Bitpm5341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Rathore, Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. Department By Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069269047(1), Dated 30.09.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 3 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc). 3. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 4. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only.

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

individual. He filed his return for AY 2018-19 on 29.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim ... income from other sources and claimed deduction for 50% as per section 57(iv) of the 1961 Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. An application under section 264 was made claiming that by mistake the assessee treated the interest income as income from other