← 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)

Punjailakalamangalam Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. K 484, Erode vs. ACIT (OSD) Ward 2(3), Erode

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2843/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2843/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Punjailakalamangalam Primary The Acit Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Ward 2(3), बनाम/ Ltd. K484 Erode. 1, Karur Main Road, Vs. Ganapathipalayam, Modakkurichi, Erode – 638 153. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabap-8122-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 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. 9. The conduct of the petitioners is also relevant. Not only have the returns been filed belatedly but the petitioners ... 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. Considering this binding judicial precedent, the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with. 5. Having said

Sant Shankar Maharaj Aashram, Amravati vs. DCIT ACIT Cir-Exemp, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 556/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

Provisional registration Certificate u/s 80G(5)(vi) 63 – 63 5. The reason for addition is as incorrect claim under section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is reproduced from Paper Book Page–58 & 59:– Para–A Adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) Amount in ` as Sl. Error In Income ... claimed in the ITR but denied by AO, CPC. Therefore AO, CPC was justified enough in rejecting appellant's claim as per section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. AO, CPC's action is therefore upheld and appellant's appeal dismissed.” 8. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee

Krishnam Raju Farms, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/VIZ/2024[201-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.400/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2019-20) Krishnam Raju Farms V. Asst. Director Of Income Tax D.No. 27-14-13 Central Processing Centre Padmalaya Theatre Road Bangalore Bheemavaram – 534202 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aapfk9183P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

assessment years and subsequent assessment years considering the same as agricultural income. Ld.CIT(A) considering all the submissions citing the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act assessee has made an incorrect claim which is apparent from the information in the return filed by the assessee ... concluded that CPC, Page No. 2 I.T.A.No.400/VIZ/2024 Krishnam Raju Farms Bangalore has rightly made addition under section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, thereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising

Co-Operative Cane Development Unian, Ltd., Lakhipur Kheri vs. ITO Ward-3(4), Lakhipur-1

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

ITA 348/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 80ASection 80P

I.T.A. No.348/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2019-20 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Roxiler Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward5(4), Pune

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

ITA 2078/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. Vaze and Shri Amod S. Vaze – AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai – Add.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80ISection 80J

deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction;(emphasis supplied) 5.2.Thus, section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act has clearly directed the AO to disallow any Incorrect Claim made by the assessee which is apparent from any information ... information required to furnish as per the Act to substantiate the claim of the assessee has not been furnished. When one reads Section 143(1)(a)(ii) with the Explanation it becomes clear that if the assessee fails to furnish the information as required to substantiate the claim, then

Desai Infra Projects (I) Private Limited, Pune vs. CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 1852/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 288Section 44ASection 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

observing as under : “14. I have considered the facts of the case and the submission made by the appellant. As per section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, the adjustment on account of an incorrect claim, if the same is apparent can be made while processing the return

Mahatma Fule Gramin Bigar Sheti Shahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Khed vs. ITO Ward8(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2167/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2167/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 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

Bird Execujet Airport Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1017/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1010/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1009/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Shree Sidh Balaji Sakh Sahkarita Maryadit, Ujjain vs. Asst Director CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Indore10 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2019-20 Shree Sidh Balaji Sakh Assistant Director Cpc, Sahkarita Maryadit, Bangalore बनाम/ Ramghat Marg, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaja57480G Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H.Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2024

Section 119(2)(a)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 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).” 9. Thus, the case of assessee is squarely

Rani Laxmibai Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat. Ltd., Jamner, Dist-Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1336/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1336/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vinay V. KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 139(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

Monalisa Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 4012/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. B R Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI. RAJ

M/S. Bakshi Security & Personnel Services P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4266/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal disregarding the bonafide and genuine submissions with regard to applicability of the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) & claim of Employees' PF & ESIC Contribution payment under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. (2) On the facts and circumstances ... learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that – (i) the provision of section 143(1)(a)(ii) was not applicable to the debatable issues as such, and therefore, the alleged claim was allowable under the provisions of section 43B of the Act; and (ii) in view of the judgment

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ACIT, Sitapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Acit Sitapur/Cpc, V. Limited Income Tax Deptt., C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Bengaluru-560500. Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P.-241001. Pan:Aawfs0887P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 11 2024

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 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 Page 6 of 9 return). In our view ... 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

Nippon Audiotronix Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2137/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] M/S Nippon Audiotronix Acit, Private Limited, Circle-16(1), N-191, Greater Kailash-I, Vs New Delhi New Delhi-110048 Pan-Aaacn2163L Assessee Revenue

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 194Q

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BRAJESH

The Delhi University Cooperative Thrift Credit Society Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 381/DEL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Shree Shiv Sahyadri Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(3) Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1788/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shree Shiv Sahyadri Nagari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pathanstha S Ward-7(3), Pune. Maryadit, Sai Park Road, Dighi, Pune – 411015. Pan: Aaeas1417N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak Sasar – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shabana Parveen – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.06.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.15,60,115/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(v)Section 2Section 250Section 80ISection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

A.C.N Cable Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1764/BANG/2024[AY2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Zahir Kasam Memon, Mumbai vs. Addl-JCIT (A)-2, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 914/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Murtaza Quresh Ghadiali- CA &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh-
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

year under consideration. Firstly we agree with the Ld.DR that prima facie adjustments could be made by the CPS as per section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the act. Admittedly there is no doubt that section 36(1)(va) and section 43(b) operates on different techniques and different parameters