← 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)

Cooperative Cane Deve. Union, Ltd., Haridwar vs. ITO, W- 1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 158/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2019-20] Co-Operative Cane Development Vs Ito Union Limited, Jawalapur, Ward-1(3)(1) Vill. & P.O. Jawalapur, Distt.- Haridwar Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Uttarakhand Pan-Aaaic0152B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10076885 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Intimation Order Dated 02.12.2020 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Assessee Filed The Letter & Stated That The Written Submission Made Be Considered. Therefore, Ld. Sr. Dr Was Heard & Proceeded To Decide The Appeal Filed By The Assessee On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Constituted By The State Government, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members Who Are Agriculturists & Cane Growers Also, Marketing Of Agricultural Products & Purchase Of Agricultural Implements & Other Products Like Fertilizers, Insecticides Etc. Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.08.2019, Declaring Total Income At Nil & Claimed Deduction U/S 80P Of Inr 1,04,54,668/-. Thereafter, The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1), Assessed Total Income At Inr 1,04,54,668/- Where Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Provided To The Assessee Society.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P

ITA No.158/DDN/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Sis Limited, Patna vs. ACIT, Delhi

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

ITA 341/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI

Sunil Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 390/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

Section 250Section 251(2)Section 3Section 54BSection 54F

that the assessee filed return of income on 03.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 1,61,778/- and the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee ... disallowing deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Act for Rs. 3,02,11,651/- and three other additions were made as per section 143(1)(a) of the Act for Rs. 11,64,260/-, as per para 3.1.1, Rs. 1,75,000/- and as per para

Mange Ram, Gurugram vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Mange Ram, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income H. No. 261, Main Pataudi Tax, Faridabad, Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Village Garoli Khurd, P.O.- Basai, Gurugram, Haryana Pan: Amwpr7462B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nian, Adv., Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca Department By Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Faridabad’S Order Dated 04.12.2023 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1058449758(1), Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Herd Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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

Swatch Group (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), C.R. Building

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

ITA 5929/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22] Swatch Group (India) Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, 4Th Floor, Rectangle-I, Plot No. D- Vs Circle 22(2), 4, Saket District Centre, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi, New Delhi-110017. 110002. Pan- Aafcs7516R Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, I: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Rura, Kanpur Dehat vs. CPC, Bangalore ITO (Exemption), Kanpur

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

ITA 101/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 249(2)(c)Section 250

same was processed by the DDIT / 1 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Rura A.Y. 2013-14 ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) on 25.03.2015 at a total income of Rs. 83,93,620/- and tax demand of Rs.31,36,830/- was created. Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal ... fact that the appellant was unaware of the 2 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Rura A.Y. 2013-14 intimation order issued under section 143(1) dated 25.03.2015 as it never received its copy. It was submitted that the assessee Samiti was located in a rural area. At the time, the Assessee

Venkateshwara B V Biocorp Private Limited, Pune vs. Circle 12, Pune

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

ITA 2759/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal are allowed with above direction

ITA 1899/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 144CSection 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Vashishtha Luxury Fashion Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax, Centralised Processing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1665/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Centralized Processing Centre did not issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act before processing the return of income with a higher tax and surcharge rate. The Appellant craves leave

Mittal Homes Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-17(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2328/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: # Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

income in ITR-6 dated 31st October, 2015for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs. 22,480/-. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 2nd December, 2015 without modifying the return of income. Subsequently, an information was received that, a search & seizure operation conducted

Changlang Community Resource Management Society, Changlalng vs. ITO(Exemption), 2(4), Shillong

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

ITA 181/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

return of income on 31.03.2019 making addition of Rs. 5,61,57,620/- for failure to respond adequately to notices issued under section 143(1) precludes any claim of procedural injustice and raise the demand of Rs. 2,93,68,990/- against which the assessee filed rectification request ... record and order of authorities below that the assessee filed return of income declaring ‘Nil’ income and while processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act the CPC has determined the total income of Rs. 6,49,97,092/- against which the assessee filed the appeal before

Parantap Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 1697/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1697/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम Parantap Charitable Trust Income Tax Officer 421, Vraj Siddhi Tower, Ward – Exemption, / Khanderao Market Char Vadodara Vs. Rasta, Rajmahal Road, Vadodara - 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aactp0976E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rushin Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr 07/01/2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 15.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) & Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Sagar Construction Company, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Sri Jayajothi and Company Private Limited, Rajapalayam

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

ITA 2131/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. V. Srikrishnan, CA
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

Sterling Court F Wing Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7122/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

jurisdiction to make an adjustment for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act any adjustment while passing the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Because deduction under section 80P is a debateable issue.” ITA No. 7121/Mum/2025 for AY 2012-13 4. The brief ... claiming deduction under Chapter-VIA as per provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The return of assessee was processed under section 143(1) on 27.02.2013, disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) for Rs. 2,66,556/-. Being aggrieved with such disallowance, assessee preferred

Sterling Court F Wing Co -Op. Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7121/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &

For Appellant: ITA Nos. 7121, 7120 &
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

jurisdiction to make an adjustment for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act any adjustment while passing the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Because deduction under section 80P is a debateable issue.’ ITA No. 7121/Mum/2025 for AY 2012-13 4, The brief ... claiming deduction under Chapter-VIA as per provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The return of assessee was processed under section 143(1) on 27.02.2013, disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) for Rs. 2,66,556/-. Being aggrieved with such disallowance, assessee preferred

Sterling Court F Wing Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7120/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &

For Appellant: ITA Nos. 7121, 7120 &
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

jurisdiction to make an adjustment for deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act any adjustment while passing the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Because deduction under section 80P is a debateable issue.’ ITA No. 7121/Mum/2025 for AY 2012-13 4, The brief ... claiming deduction under Chapter-VIA as per provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The return of assessee was processed under section 143(1) on 27.02.2013, disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) for Rs. 2,66,556/-. Being aggrieved with such disallowance, assessee preferred

Ck International Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Delhi

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

ITA 677/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi & A.T. PandaFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

arising out of order dated 07.06.2020 of Learned Assessing Officer/Assessment Unit, CPC, Bangaluru (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO") passed under section 143(1) of the Act for assessment year 2019-20. ITA No.677/Del/2025 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 25.07.2020 declaring ... total income of Rs.12,15,528/-. Order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 27.10.2020 was passed by Ld. AO making adjustment of Rs.14,68,000/- under the head “Long Term Capital Gains” on account of adopting stamp duty value instead of sales consideration of immoveable property sold

Powergrid Rampur Sambhal Transmission Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 20(1), Delhi

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5236/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Pawan Garg
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 199Section 244ASection 250

case are that assessee filed return of income for AY 2022-23 on 22.09.2022. The said return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation order under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 02.03.2023 wherein TDS credit only to the tune of Rs.3 ... been allowed, instead of credit of Rs.5,65,923/- as appearing in Form 26AS. No prior intimation/communication of proposed adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued to the Assessee. The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act against Section 143(1) order

Rcs Associates Charitable Trust, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Solan

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/CHANDI/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.759/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.769/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2024-25) Rcs Associates Charitable Trust Ito Exemption 74/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla Income Tax Office बनाम/ Vs. Himachal Pradesh - 171001 New Bypass Road, Kathed, Solan (Hp) - 173208 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabtr-8127-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Vishal Mohan (Sr. Advocate) A/W Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ars (Virtual Mode) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 06-01-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2023-24 & 2024-25. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2023-24 Which Arises Out Of An Order Ld. Addl. Cit / Joint Cit (Appeals)-9, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 26-03-2025 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan (Sr. Advocate) a/w Sh. PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND