← All Phrases

“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)

ITO- 23(2)(1), Mumbai vs. J.M. Financial Mutual Fund, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4575/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

disclosure between Schedule IE and Schedule OS of the return of income. 4 J.M. Financial Mutual Fund 5.2 The initial adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii) leading to disallowance of exemption of 1,10,80,56,197 stands nullified through rectification under section 154 dated 11.11.2024. 5.3. The variance

Ais Shivaji Memorial Societys Employees Coop Credit Society, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 207/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Deepak S. SasarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act, he submitted that the Assessing Officer / CPC has applied the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Referring to the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(v), he drew the attention of the Bench to the same ... grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 14. The Ld. DR on the other hand referring to the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act drew the attention of the Bench to the same and submitted that the CPC is empowered to make adjustment if an incorrect

546 Sulur Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Socirty, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 4(1), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal and the Stay application of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2159/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay546 Sulur Primary Agriculture Co- I.T.O., Operative Credit Society, Vs. Non-Corp Ward 4(1), 61, Town Corporation Street, 67A Race Course Road, Sulur S.O. Rajkamal Tex, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. Coimbatore-641402 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aaaaz 0534 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Tribunal. 5. During the appellate proceedings before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that it was beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. It was submitted that power to disallow a claim under Chapter VI-A (including Section 80P) for non- filing ... belated filing of return, in itself, did not constitute an “incorrect claim” apparent from the return for the purpose of disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for the relevant assessment year. The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that placing reliance by the lower authorities of the decision

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1903/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1902/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL

Riddhi Siddhi Sewa Sansthan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 899/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Completion Of The Processing U/S 143(1). 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3.Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

inadvertently. Further in the return of income there is no error. Hence the adjustment made do not fall within the purview of section 143(1)(a)(ii). Otherwise also, income is required to be computed as per the provisions of the Act. Even if there is any mistake ... inadvertently. Further, in the return of income there is no error. Hence the adjustment made do not fall within the purview of section 143(1)(a)(ii). Otherwise also, income is required to be computed as per the provisions of the Act. Even if there is any mistake

Narayansinthy Gajendra Patro, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 13(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad

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

ITA 698/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Srikanth PolireddyFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “SM-A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

Jignesh Naresh Jariwala, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 4673/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Milind Dattani / Ms. Nidhi JainFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha P. Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89A

been granted on the ground that Form 10EE has not been filed. The Ld. AO has applied provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) for rejecting relief u/s 89A. Aggrieved by non-grant of relief u/s 89A in the intimation dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Ld. AO, u/s 143(1

Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 153ASection 80Section 80P

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 ... Therefore, in our considered view, the case of the assessee would also not 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). 7.3 We note that in the case

Sri S L Dugar Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 1006/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited, Bajwara, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Hoshiarpur

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 318/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 318/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) The Straw Board Manufacturing Ito Company Ltd Ward 1 बनाम/ Vs. C/O Lala Shri Chunilal Free Hospital Hoshiarpur. Bajwara, Hoshiarpur – 146 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5095-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sandeep Vijh (Ca) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata [Cit(A)] Dated 26-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S. 143(1) Of The Act On 22-11-2022 Proposing Certain Adjustment Of Rs.6.58 Lacs To The Returned Income Of The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed Adjustment Of Rs.5.94 Lacs Against Which The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. Having

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh (CA) –Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 43B

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

ITO(Exemption), Ward-2(4), Shillong vs. North East Society of Sisters of the Holy Cross, Meghalaya

ITA 81/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Jubilant Foodworks Limited, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida

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

ITA 184/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Jubilant Food Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Plot No. 1A Sector Income Tax, Circle – 5 (1) 16 A Gautam Buddha Nagar (1), Noida Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan No. Aabcd 1821 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K M Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimata, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80J

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." 10. We have heard the parties and gone through the material available on record. In the instant case the report

St. Sebastians Church, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing

ITA 3398/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeest. Sebastians Church Vs Centralized Processing Center, Marouli Road, Marouli, Income-Tax Department, Chembur, Mumbai-400 074 Bengaluru / Income-Tax Officer Pan : Aaats0534R Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 026 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 13(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Twinstar Jupiter Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3654/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3654/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Twinstar Jupiter Co- V/S. Income Tax Officer, Operative Hsg Soc Ltd बिाम Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai 41 Jupiter Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai Cufe Parade, Colaba, 400051 Mumbai 400005. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaabt0015E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ashok Patil राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok PatilFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

|आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

The Jangalberi Co-Operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd, Distt. Hamirpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Hamirpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1147/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1147/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Jangalberi Co-Operative Agri बनाम The Ito, Service Society Ltd., Hamirpur, Vs Vpo – Jangalberi, Teh - Sujanpur, (H.P.). Distt. – Hamirpur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aacat9859R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Alok Krishan, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Alok Krishan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Subhadra Tanaji Chavan, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Satara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1389/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1389/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Subhadra Tanaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.31, Suparna Niwas S Ward-2, Satara. Pawar Colony, Shahupuri, Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Bgspc7420D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2021-22Dated 30.03.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.143(1)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.12.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 500Section 50CSection 50C(1)

statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction; 7. 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 because, ITA No.1389/PUN/2025 [A] 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

Navrang Majoor Sahakari Society Ltd., Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1460/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

deduction u/s 80P is not included anywhere and is therefore, outside the purview of the said provision. Therefore, rigors of provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) and clause (v) are not applicable to the case of the assessee. On this legal ground itself, the assessee succeeds and any other

Panchashil Majoor Sahakari Society Ltd., Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 1459/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

deduction u/s 80P is not included anywhere and is therefore, outside the purview of the said provision. Therefore, rigors of provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) and clause (v) are not applicable to the case of the assessee. On this legal ground itself, the assessee succeeds and any other

Elsamex Maintenance Services Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1215/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Rapelli, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)Section 41

down in Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Learned Jt. CIT(A)/ ADIT-CPC erred in making the adjustments under section 143(1)(a)(ii) of Rs. 2,99,61,925 without appreciating that issues where question of law or debatable issues are involved are beyond the scope