“Assistant Director”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(9B) / Section 117731 judgments

The decision most relied on for Assistant Director is Vodithala Educational Society v. Assistant Director of Income (20 SOT 353), cited in 50 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Assistant Director

Vodithala Educational Society v. Assistant Director of Income

20 SOT 353 · 2008 · ITAT

citing judgments

An educational institution that collects money over and above the prescribed rates, essentially acting as a vendor of education for profit, may not be considered a charitable institution under Section 2(15) and may be viewed as operating with a profit motive.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Assistant Director of Income Tax

304 ITR 264 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 cannot be initiated if the original assessment proceedings, initiated based on a filed return, are still pending. This includes situations where the time for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) has not expired.

292 ITR 416(SC) Galileo Nederland BV v. Assistant Director of Income-tax, Circle-i(2), (Intl. Tax), New Delhi

367 ITR 319 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The principle of consistency requires that the Assessing Officer or First Appellate Authority must follow decisions made in earlier years, unless there are good and sufficient reasons to deviate. An assessee's status should not be altered arbitrarily without assigning reasons or distinguishing facts.

STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER

302 ITR 275 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

Information from the Enforcement Directorate indicating inflated purchases can serve as a valid basis for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, initiating reassessment proceedings.

Trib.) (v) Flying Fabrication v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

133 Taxmann.com 84 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act made by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective in nature, meaning payments made before the amendment are not affected by its retrospective application.

Jabalpur); Gopalkrishna Aswini Kumar v. Assistant Director of Income Tax

192 ITD 562 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

Cases cited by this decision often involve assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Murasoli Trust v. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions IV), Chennai

65 Taxmann.com 186 · 2016 · Reported

citing judgments

A trust engaged in activities that constitute trade, commerce, or business is not entitled to claim its object as charitable if those activities fall foul of the proviso to section 2(15). Running a petrol outlet may not be considered a business incidental to the main object of a trust.

Ashapura Minichem Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax

40 SOT 220 · 2010 · ITAT

citing judgments

Income of a non-resident is deemed to accrue or arise in India if it falls under clauses (v), (vi), or (vii) of section 9(1), irrespective of whether the non-resident has a place of business or connection in India or has rendered services in India, due to the retrospective amendment of Section 9 by the Finance Act, 2010.

Judgments citing Assistant Director

Bhoruka Fabcons Private Limited, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, Cpc, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccb 9377 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bhargava S. N, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Calculated In The Prescribed Manner Under The Relevant Act. As Per Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. Bhargava S. N, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, CPC, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. PAN : AACCB 9377 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Bhargava

Tikona Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 1117/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1117/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tikona Trust बिधम/ Assistant Director Of 3A, 3Rd Floor Corpora, Lbs Marg Income Tax, Cpc Vs. Bhandup West, Cpc, Bangaluru, Mumbai-400078 Karnataka- 560500

For Appellant: Shri .Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri. V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 234BSection 41Section 41(1)

BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1117/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tikona Trust बिधम/ Assistant Director of 3A, 3rd Floor Corpora, LBS Marg Income Tax, CPC Vs. Bhandup West, CPC, Bangaluru, Mumbai-400078 Karnataka- 560500 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AABTT5778M

ACIT-13(1) (2), Mumbai vs. Oommen Chackalyil Chacko, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1620/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kedar PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Santhil Kumaran

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

Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the intimation/order, dated 23.11.2020 passed by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). ITA. No. 1620/Mum/2022 Assessment

DCIT- CC- 7 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Lodha Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1406/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 7(3) V. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd., Room No. 655, 6Th Floor (Earlier Known As M/S. Lodha Developers Ltd.,) 412, 17G, Vardhan Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Niraj Sheth Department Represented By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

proved, the assessee will be liable to penalty. To give comments on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Director of Inspection v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi (supra) and the judgment of the Special Bench in the case of Deepak Sales and Properties (P) Ltd. (Supra). (viii ... Officer to pass the penalty orders de novo in the above lines.” 8. In this regard Ld.DR relied on the following case laws: - a) Assistant Director of Inspection V. Kum. A.B. Shanti [122 taxman 574 (SC)] b) Deepak Sales & Properties (P.) Ltd., V. Addl. CIT [95 taxmann.com 166 (Mumbai Tribunal

Legacy Global Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 846/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arvind S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 Legacy Global Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director of 333, Thimmaiah Road, Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 052. CPC, Bengaluru. PAN: AABCL 5654P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Arvind S., CA Respondent

Prajosh Nanu, Mumbai-400022 vs. Asst. Dirctor of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1169/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1169/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Prajosh Nanu बिधम/ Acit, Cpc Room No. 3, Plot No. 265, Vs. Sanjoli Building, Sulochana Shetti, Marg Sion West, Mumbai-400022. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apkpk0260R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 22.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Relevant Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Herein Referred As ‘The Ld. Cit (A)’ Has Erred In Not Granting The Credit Of Foreign Taxes Paid As Should Have Been Duly Allowed Under Article 24(2) Of The India-Uk Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (‘Dtaa’) Read With Section 90 Of The Act, Even Though The Appellant Was ‘Resident’ In India & Therefore, Had Offered His Global Income To Tax In India Including The Uk Sourced Income Which Had Suffered Tax In Uk As Well.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234CSection 90

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC in levying additional interest under section 234C of the Act.” 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against

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

TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 Indauto Filters, Vs. The Assistant Director No.43/7, 3rd Floor, 15th Cross, of Income Tax, CPC, Between 4th & 6th Main, Bengaluru. Malleswaram, Bengaluru – 560 004. PAN: AAAFI 6985Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant

Waterfield Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2102/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Home First Finance Company India Limited ……………...………… Appellant 511, ACME Plaza 136, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 [PAN: AACCH3317E] Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC & The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ………………….…… Respondent Circle 10(1)(1), Mumbai ITA No.: 2102/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2018-19 Waterfield Technologies

Forbes Facility Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, NFAC, Circle 6 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2051/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Delicacies & More, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1996/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Kalpanadevi, Pondicherry vs. ADIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 664/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.664/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalpanadevi, The Assistant Director Of 34, Koil Mania Street, Vs. Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Pondicherry 605 009. Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Csjpk5198N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.14,89,000/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

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

Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.664/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalpanadevi, The Assistant Director of 34, Koil Mania Street, Vs. Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Pondicherry 605 009. CPC, Bengaluru 560 500. [PAN:CSJPK5198N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर

Zynga Game Network India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 693/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Zynga Game Network Vs Dcit, Circle -7(1)(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Road No. 19, Prestige Falcon Tower Koramangala 4Th & 5Th Floor, Brunton Bengaluru 560095 Road, Richmond Town Bengaluru 560025 Pan – Aaacz3937G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10054666 Dated 16.06.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc / Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A)"] Has Erred In Disallowing The Delayed Remittance Of The Employees Contribution To Pf Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Remitted The Same Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT-DR

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

Delhi in appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10054666 dated 16.06.2022 for AY 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The Learned Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC / Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] has erred in disallowing the delayed remittance of the employees contribution ... filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. 2 M/s. Zynga Game Network India Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Learned Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC / Learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not following the judgements of the jurisdictional Karnataka High Court, which has held that

Sri M G Anand Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 762/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may authorise any Additional Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer (hereafter in this section and in sub- section (2) of section 278D referred

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 761/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Sri M G Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 760/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 759/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 758/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 757/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

Sri. M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 756/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

ADIT (It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nagase & Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharashi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

./2007 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act) in respect of the order passed by the Assistant Director of Income- Tax, International Taxation Range 321 Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned AO) under section