← All Phrases

“Section 139(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(5)688 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(5) is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), cited in 1,842 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(5)

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court
290
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT
108 ITR 345 · 1977 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.
140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Exemption provisions under Chapter III, such as Section 10B(8), must be interpreted strictly, and any claim for such exemptions must be made in the return of income. The principles governing Chapter III (incomes not forming part of total income) differ from those for Chapter VIA (deductions in computing total income).

DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
88 ITD 273 · 2004 · ITAT
169
citing judgments

Interest, sales tax, and purchase tax subsidies received by an assessee are generally considered capital receipts, not revenue income, for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.
354 ITR 630 · 2013 · High Court
166
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free own funds to cover investments yielding exempt income, it is presumed that such investments are made from these own funds, precluding any disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A, even when borrowed funds are also available.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

Judgments citing Section 139(5)

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 90

confirmed the Order of AO. The CIT(A) held that the Assessee has not filed Form 67 before the time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act, and therefore Form 67 is non-est in law. The CIT(A) also held that provisions of rule 128 are mandatory

Rohan Hattangadi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1896/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rohan Hattangadi Cit(A), 32,33/A, Peace Haven Society, Faceless Appeal Centre, Vs. Bandra, Mumbai-400 050 Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 139(5)Section 244ASection 250Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Rohan

Nirmala Murli Relwani, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 2094/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ratnesh Kumar AwasthiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90Section 91

original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 20/08/2019. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act on 26/08/2020, declaring a total income of Rs. 60,58,060, along with the computation of income and Form No.67 ... file Form No.67 within the prescribed due date. Upon receipt of Form No. 67, the assessee filed a revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act and claimed the foreign tax credit of Rs. 11,79,796. The learned AR submitted that the revised return of income

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Maharashtra vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 445/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(2)

ITA No.445 & 402/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 1 DCIT, CC-2(2) Vs. M/s Vinati Organics Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX

M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(2)

ITA No.445 & 402/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 1 DCIT, CC-2(2) Vs. M/s Vinati Organics Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX

Navin Flurine International, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is fully dismissed

ITA 6532/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, may be requested to reject the validity of filing of Revised Return of Income, because the provisions of Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for revising a Return of Income under the circumstances when it is discovered that any omission ... Counsel. Such advice by no stretch of reasoning and imagination can be termed as an omission or wrong statement, as mentioned in Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As a matter of fact the change in opinion is the cause of filing the so-called Revised Return

ACIT CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corp.Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2517/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2284/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2012-13) आअसं. 2285/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra
Section 132Section 143(3)

assessee offered rental income from the said premises under the head “ Income from House Property” in the return of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act and thereafter return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. Consequent to search action, notice under

K. Raheja Corp Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir-4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2285/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2284/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2012-13) आअसं. 2285/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra
Section 132Section 143(3)

assessee offered rental income from the said premises under the head “ Income from House Property” in the return of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act and thereafter return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. Consequent to search action, notice under

K. Raheja Corp Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir -4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2284/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2284/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2012-13) आअसं. 2285/मुं/2021 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra
Section 132Section 143(3)

assessee offered rental income from the said premises under the head “ Income from House Property” in the return of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act and thereafter return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. Consequent to search action, notice under

Soumya Ghosh, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 832/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 Soumya Ghosh, C-1103, The Assistant Windmills Of Your Commissioner Of Mind, Income Tax, Epip Zone, Whitefield, Circle – 3(3)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Affpg0104B Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19/07/2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax Nfac, Delhi, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Is So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 90

confirmed the Order of the Ld.AO. The CIT(A) held that the Assessee has not filed Form 67 before the time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act, and therefore Form 67 is non-est in law. The CIT(A) also held that provisions of Rule

Ajit Vasant Pai, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 741/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(1)(a)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

income claiming loss in terms of section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] and that the provisions of section 139(5) are not applicable to a revised return where loss is claimed. Besides the above, the CIT(Appeals) also held that the issue was debatable ... assessee filed the revised return and claimed that same is filed under sub-section (5) to section 139. As per the provisions of section 139(5) if the assessee has furnished the return under section 139(1) and subsequently discloses any wrong statement therein or which in his opinion

Indauto Filters, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K G Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 32

instant case, return under section 139(1) was filed belatedly. Hence, the assessee is not entitled to file a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act going by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha (supra). However

Sri Kambegowda Puttanarasappa, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 456/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Avinash Mallya, Advocate and Sri.Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

Dharmista Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

Capital Gains Account Scheme, can be made till the date of belated return under section 139(4) or revised return under section 139(5) as the wordings used in section 54(2) is "section 139", and not section 139(1), which covers all sub- sections of section 139”. The Supreme

Aquasub Engineering, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Centralized Processinf Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 78/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Suresh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80CSection 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य

ACIT Cent. Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aym Syntex Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2550/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

doubtful nature. The mechanism is The mechanism is M/s AYM Syntex Ltd. ITA Nos. 2340, 2341, 2550/M/2021 & Ors provided in Section 139(5) of the Act which state that an assesses provided in Section 139(5) of the Act which state that an assesses provided in Section 139(5

ACIT- CC -3, Mumbai vs. Aym Syntex Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2549/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

doubtful nature. The mechanism is The mechanism is M/s AYM Syntex Ltd. ITA Nos. 2340, 2341, 2550/M/2021 & Ors provided in Section 139(5) of the Act which state that an assesses provided in Section 139(5) of the Act which state that an assesses provided in Section 139(5

Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2342/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

doubtful nature. The mechanism is The mechanism is M/s AYM Syntex Ltd. ITA Nos. 2340, 2341, 2550/M/2021 & Ors provided in Section 139(5) of the Act which state that an assesses provided in Section 139(5) of the Act which state that an assesses provided in Section 139(5

M/S. Aym Syntex Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Cent Cir-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2341/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

doubtful nature. The mechanism is The mechanism is M/s AYM Syntex Ltd. ITA Nos. 2340, 2341, 2550/M/2021 & Ors provided in Section 139(5) of the Act which state that an assesses provided in Section 139(5) of the Act which state that an assesses provided in Section 139(5