UBER HEALTH TECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 2021/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 September 2026AY 2017-189 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the limitation period, rendering the assessment order void. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding the share premium and business expenses.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring a loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of share premium and disallowed a portion of business expenses for want of supporting details. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order is void due to a time-barred notice and whether additions under Section 68 and disallowances of expenses were made without proper appreciation of facts and without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

PER SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT

01.

This appeal has been filed by Uber Health Tech Private Limited (the assessee/appellant) for assessment year 2017-18 against the appellate order dated 18 July 2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the ITA 2021/BANG/2025 UBER HEALTH TECH PRIVATE LIMITED

learned CIT(A)]. By that order, the learned

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →