“Section 143(1)(a)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)(ii)275 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a)(ii) is CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302), cited in 540 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)(a)(ii)

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court

540

citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.

410 ITR 417 · 2019 · High Court

486

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI, if paid beyond the due date prescribed by the respective welfare fund statutes, are not allowed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.

Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT

298 ITR 298 · 2008 · Supreme Court

191

citing judgments

The Supreme Court approves the mixed fund theory, holding that no interest disallowance is warranted under section 36(1)(iii) if investments or advances are made from the assessee's own non-interest bearing funds, even when mixed funds are available. This presumption applies when non-interest bearing funds are sufficient to meet the investments.

Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P

2 SCC 585 · 1981 · Reported

190

citing judgments

An Explanation to a statutory provision can either clarify an existing ambiguity in the main provision or add to and widen its scope.

CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale

124 ITR 391 · 1980 · High Court

181

citing judgments

An Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act that widens the scope of the provision, rather than merely clarifying it, cannot be applied retrospectively to assessment periods prior to its effective date. Assessments must be made according to the law in force at the relevant time.

CIT v. Microlabs Ltd.

383 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court

175

citing judgments

If an assessee possesses interest-free funds exceeding investments in tax-free securities, it is presumed that investments are made from these own funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is computed on the gross expenditure incurred, not net expenditure after reducing income earned.

(ii) CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers

3 SCC 57 · 2003 · Reported

131

citing judgments

Courts must reject interpretations that defeat the plain intention of the legislature, even if language is imprecise. A statute must be read as a whole, construing provisions harmoniously to avoid rendering any part otiose or a dead letter.

CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd.

32 Taxmann.com 370 · 2013 · High Court

131

citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that investments yielding exempt income were made from these funds, therefore disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A is not justified.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)(a)(ii)

Fishery Survey of India Employees Cooperative Credit and Thrift Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 23/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.23/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Fishery Survey Of India Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit & Thrift Ward-1(1) Society Visakhapatnam Fishing Harbour Complex Beach Road, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aafat3533M] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048861637(1) Dated 17.01.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 24.12.2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Society Act Had Filed It’S Return Of Income On 2

For Appellant: Shri C Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

belated one. This is mechanical exercise and one that can be carried out by the CPC, very much within the scope of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the amendment made to section 143(1)(a)(v) is applicable w.e.f

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

claim of the assessee is misplaced in view of 4 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR the fact that section 143(1)(a)(ii) mandates that adjustment shall be made with regard to an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return ... income can be adjusted to the total income of the assessee company, which is not present in the said case. 5. Section 143(1)(a)(ii) 17 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR i. It is submitted that u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) only an incorrect claim which

M/S Gulabchand & Co., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore, Mumbai

ITA 1889/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathyआअसं.1889 /मुं/2022(िन.व.2018-19)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

specified under the respective laws, the same has to be disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. A perusal of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act makes it clear that adjustment can be made in respect of an incorrect claim made that is apparent from the information

M/S. Rajco Metal Indutries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Comm of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1541/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Rajco Metal Industries Pvt. The Dcit, Cpc Bangalore, Ltd., Post Bag No. 2, Electronic City 19, Oriental Insurance Building, Vs. Post Office, Bangalore-560500. 31, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacr 5185 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S Rajco Metal Industries Pvt. The Assessing Officer -2(3)(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 19, Oriental Insurance Building, Vs. Mumbai-400020. 31, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacr 5185 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Rajco Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC-Bangalore 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1897/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Beckhaul Digital Technologies Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 97/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

amount in the return of income and the case of the assessee firm does not fall under the said sub-clause. 1.7. Section 143(1)(a)(ii) 1.7.i It is submitted that u/s 143(1)(a)(ii), only disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year

Balrajsingh Jagjitsingh Kharbanda, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed dismissed

ITA 797/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Balrajsinghjagjitsingh Adit, Cpc Bangalore, Kharbanda, Cpc, Bangalore-560500. C/3, Ravi Darshan, Sherly Vs. Rajan Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Adhpk 1733 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajesh S. Kothari Revenue By : Kamble Minal Mohan, Dr : Date Of Hearing 05/06/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 07/06/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh S. KothariFor Respondent: Kamble Minal Mohan, DR

Section 0Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

total income in the return. The computing the total income in the return. The ld. CPC has also invoked section invoked section 143(1)(a)(ii) holding the same as 143(1)(a)(ii) holding the same as incorrect claim by the assessee. The CPC has also held this incorrect

K A Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Icome Tax Department -CPC-Bagalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 1325/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthym.A No.159/Mum/2023 [ Arising Out Of Ita No.1325/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2019-20)]

For Appellant: Shri A.N.ShahFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Akar Auto Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 502/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

date as prescribed under the relevant statute, then it is un-admissible claim. Hence this contention is also not tenable as section 143(1)(a)(ii) has clearly covered the disallowance on account of incorrect claim. 6.3 The Assessee also raised the issue that the assessee cannot be left remediless

Integrity Verification Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1843/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryintegrity Verification Ito, Services Pvt.Ltd., 11, Ward-3(2)(1), बनाम/ Tulsani Chambers, Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg1281A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram ""थ" की ओर से/Respondentby: Shri M.P.Ahuja, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.09.2021 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [ In Short, The “Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. The Appeal Was Originally Heard & Pronounced On 28.04.2022, However, Later On In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Checkmate Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs Cit In Ita Of No.2833/2016 Dated 12.10.2022 Has Been Recalled For Deciding The Issue Of Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. Accordingly, This Appeal Came Before Us For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Shri M.P.Ahuja, Sr.AR

Section 10Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

therefore, this falls in the nature of incorrect claim of the assessee. In terms of provision of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, the AO can make adjustment for any incorrect claim while processing the return of income under theprovision of section 143(1

A G Enviro Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 110/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 110Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2019&20½

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Potdar izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

specified under the respective Acts, the same has to be disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. A perusal of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act makes it clear that adjustment can be made in respect of an incorrect claim made that is apparent from the information

Shankar Dayal HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(7), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2200/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Singhavi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Dhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 50CSection 54E

statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction;” 5. On a conjoint reading of section 143(1)(a)(ii) along with Explanation it becomes very much clear that the addition under section 50C(1) cannot be in the nature of incorrect claim ... provided in Explanation to section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. This is so because, section 50C has to be read as a whole and cannot be restricted to sub-section (1) alone. It is fairly well settled, a deeming provision has to be taken to its logical

Shreeji Trans Logistics Ltd., Thane vs. CIT (A), CPC, Banglore

In the result, th same. In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are e grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed

ITA 388/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Ita No. 388 To 390/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2019-2020 Shreeji Translogistics Ltd., Cit(Appeals), Plot No. 107, Shreeji Krupa, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Sector 19-C, Phase-Ii Vashi, Centre, Thane-400705 Delhi. Pan No. Aaecs 3602 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Anil Sant, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)

relevant Act is an incorrect claim, which claim, which is liable for adjustment under is liable for adjustment under the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Before us no submission has been Before us no submission

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 109/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No. 109/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Wanbury Limited बिधम / Adit, Cpc 10Th Floor, Section 30- 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Vs. No 48/1 48/2, A Bsel Tech Park, B Beratenaagrahareabegur, Wing, Opp. Vashi Hosur Rd, Uttarahallihobli, Railway Station, Vashi Bengaluru 560100 Mumbai 400705 स्थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp5939P (अपीलाथी .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 30Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

M/S. Super Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1949/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 1949 & 1950/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-2020 M/S Super Tiles & Marbles National Faceless Appeal Pvt. Ltd, Centre (Nfac) Vs. 904 Marathon Icon, Opposite Mararshi Karve Road, New Peninsula Corporate Park, Off Marine Lines, Churchgate, Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel-West, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacs 9361 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raman Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Raman Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 14Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

Godhavadar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Godhavadar, Liliya Mota, Amreli-365535 vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 315/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

deduction of " 6,53,498/- under section 80P of the Act on the ground that the claim of assessee was incorrect under section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act since the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1 ... prima facie adjustment under I.T.A No. 315/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 10 Godhavadar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ADIT (CPC) section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). In our view, the scope of the adjustments that

Batava Devli Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Batava Devli, Tal. Kunlava, Dist. Amreli vs. The ADIT, (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 143(1)(v)Section 250Section 80Section 80A

deduction of " 3,99,585/- under section 80P of the Act on the ground that the claim of assessee was incorrect under section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act since the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1 ... second issue for consideration is that whether the case of the assessee would fall within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). In our view, the scope of the adjustments

Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Coop Thrift Society Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 235/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Coop Vs. Income Tax Officer Thrift Society Ltd., Ward-2(1) Opp. Sun School Visakhapatnam Near Vuda Layout, Bheemunipatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aacas9620H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 10ASection 11Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021 dated 08.03.2023. The said case law is not applicable to the case on hand, because the case law pertains to section 143(1)(a)(ii), but, in the instant case, the AO has adopted the provisions of 143(1)(a)(v). The AO has specifically mentioned that

Dasari Bujji, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 20/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.20/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Dasari Bujji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-54-5/31 Ward-1(1) Sanjeevayya Colony, Visakhapatnam Near Bethadha Church, Tatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bklpd8566J]

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

concerned, the Ld.DR categorically mentioned that the CPC is empowered to disallow the same, as it is covered in clauses mentioned in section 143(1)(a)(ii), wherein, it is mentioned that an incorrect claim is also one of the reasons for disallowance. The Ld.DR relied on the decision ... information in the return or not. The Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2008 as well as Finance Bill, 2016 explaining the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act will explain the situation, which is reproduced as under : 7 I.T.A. No.20/Viz/2023 , A.Y. 2019-20 Dasari Bujji, Visakhapatnam “Memorandum

T Srinivasa Rao&Co, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 184/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

concerned, the Ld.DR categorically mentioned that the CPC is empowered to disallow the same, as it is covered in clauses mentioned in section 143(1)(a)(ii), wherein, it is mentioned that an incorrect claim is also one of the reasons for disallowance. The Ld.DR relied on the decision ... information in the return or not. The Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2008 as well as Finance Bill, 2016 explaining the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act will explain the situation, which is reproduced as under : “Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2008 Correction of arithmetical mistakes and adjustment