← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)(a)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)(iv)322 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a)(iv) is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

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

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT
227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court
621
citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.
343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
438
citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)
315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
363
citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT
177 ITR 377 · 1989 · Supreme Court
275
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides a commercial advantage of an enduring nature may still be classified as revenue expenditure if its purpose is to facilitate existing trading operations, improve business efficiency, or upgrade existing products, depending on the specific context and objective.

CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.
222 ITR 344 · 1996 · Supreme Court
223
citing judgments

Unclaimed deposits received in the course of trading transactions and sundry credit balances written back are taxable as business income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they constitute a cessation of trading liability.

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills
296 ITR 238 · 2008 · High Court
180
citing judgments

A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
404 ITR 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The waiver of a loan taken for acquiring capital assets is considered a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling distinguishes between the waiver of trading liabilities and capital liabilities for tax purposes.

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

Ranar Agrochem Limited, Parawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

ITA 288/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri M. Madhusudan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Jenardhanan V, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member

Gurmeet Singh Hora, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 45/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 45/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gurmeet Singh Hora A-1, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaoph6268D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

justifications enough for any disallowance of expenditure under the Act? As we deal with this question, we are alive to the fact section 143(1)(a)(iv) specifically an adjustment in respect of “disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total ... contentions in this regard that the observations made in the tax audit report, in the light of the specific provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv), must prevail- more so when the tax auditor is appointed by the assessee himself, is clearly unsustainable in law. While Section 143(1

Denso International India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6688/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6688/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Denso International India Private Ld. Dcit, Limited, Vs. Circle 7(1), B-1/D-4, Ground Floor,Mohan C.R. Building, Delhi. Cooperative Estate,Delhi. Pan No.Aabcd1103D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ITA No.6688/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Kaushal Kumar, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2619/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

passing a simple template order, secondly CPC can effect such disallowance only if appellant auditor suggested the disallowance for delayed payments under section 143(1)(a)(iv) which is not in case of appellant. Therefore CPC patently violated two explicit and clear mandates of section 143(1 ... passing a simple template order, secondly CPC can effect such disallowance only if appellant auditor suggested the disallowance for delayed payments under section 143(1)(a) (iv) which is not in case of appellant. Therefore CPC patently violated two explicit and clear mandates of section 143(1

Kaushal Kumar, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2618/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

passing a simple template order, secondly CPC can effect such disallowance only if appellant auditor suggested the disallowance for delayed payments under section 143(1)(a)(iv) which is not in case of appellant. Therefore CPC patently violated two explicit and clear mandates of section 143(1 ... passing a simple template order, secondly CPC can effect such disallowance only if appellant auditor suggested the disallowance for delayed payments under section 143(1)(a) (iv) which is not in case of appellant. Therefore CPC patently violated two explicit and clear mandates of section 143(1

Bny Mellon International Operations (India) Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. I.T.O, CPC Bangaluru, Bangulure

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

ITA 2707/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh S. Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Bny Mellon International Operations (India) Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. I.T.O, CPC Bangaluru, Banguluru

ITA 2706/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh S. Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Ft 92 the Vilupuram and Tindivanam Gov Arts College Teaching and Non-Teaching Staffs Co-Op Society, Vilupuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vilupuram

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2046/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2046/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

Income was not filed within the due date. (ii) The disallowance u/s 80(P) was outside the scope and ambit of section 143(1)(a)(iv) for A.Y. 2019-20. It is seen from intimation order that that the extended due date of filing of original return of income

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 644/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

revenue of Rs.18,70,090/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) by CPC, Bengaluru, and an adjustment was made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on Form 3CD, disallowing Rs . 31,01,954/- towards the delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. The assessee carried ... employee components. 7.1 Without prejudice to the above factual contention, the Ld. AR submitted that even otherwise, the adjustment made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) was wholly unjustified because the issue of allowability of delayed employees’ contribution to PF and ESI was, at the relevant point of time

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 643/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

revenue of Rs.18,70,090/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) by CPC, Bengaluru, and an adjustment was made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on Form 3CD, disallowing Rs . 31,01,954/- towards the delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. The assessee carried ... employee components. 7.1 Without prejudice to the above factual contention, the Ld. AR submitted that even otherwise, the adjustment made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) was wholly unjustified because the issue of allowability of delayed employees’ contribution to PF and ESI was, at the relevant point of time

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 642/CHANDI/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

revenue of Rs.18,70,090/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) by CPC, Bengaluru, and an adjustment was made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on Form 3CD, disallowing Rs . 31,01,954/- towards the delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. The assessee carried ... employee components. 7.1 Without prejudice to the above factual contention, the Ld. AR submitted that even otherwise, the adjustment made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) was wholly unjustified because the issue of allowability of delayed employees’ contribution to PF and ESI was, at the relevant point of time

Orbit Aviation Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-1(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 341/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.341/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Orbit Aviation Private Limited Dcit-Circle-1(1) बनाम/ 1St Floor Metro Plaza, Sco 54-55 Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Sector 9-D, Chandigarh Cr Building, Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-9386-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Aditya Kumar (Ca) A/W Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 07-08-2023 Making Disallowance U/S 43B For Rs.1,07,54,593/- On Account Of Gst Payable At Year-End But Remaining Unpaid By Due Date Of Furnishing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1). Having

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar (CA) a/w Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145Section 43BSection 44A

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Sri Sainath Associates, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

1)(va) of the Act relying upon the information given by the auditor in Form 3CD. As per the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) the following adjustment can be made: “143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Renew Wind Energy (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4315/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 41(1)

Wind Energy [A.Y 2021-22 Assessing Officer has failed in considering the fact that adjustments proposed in communication for proposed adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act have already been included in the Profit & Loss account of the assessee and the amount under the tax audit report

Rng Construction Co., Indira Nagar vs. DCIT, DCIT-CPC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 156/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 145ASection 40Section 43B

advancing an argument that it was outside the purview of section 143(1) whereas the AO has invoked the provision of section 143(1)(a)(iv) and made multiple adjustments/disallowances by taking into account the reportings made by auditors in audit report. The provision of law i.e. section 143(1

M/S Beeaar Autowheels India Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 282/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Beeaar Autowheels India V. The Income Tax Officer Pvt Ltd Ward-1(3) 9, Premier Building, Shahnazaf Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Road, Lucknow-226001. Nagar, Lucknow-New, Uttar Pradesh-226001. Pan:Aadcb8897L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

considered the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, as they stood and pointed out that as per section 143(1)(a) (iv) of the Act, disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not Page 3 of 10 taken into account in computing the total income

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 243/LKW/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

considered the addition of Rs.29,16,547/- to the returned income of the assessee under section 143(1)(a)(iv) on account of late deposit of employee contribution to provident fund and ESI while processing the return of income. He reproduced the provisions of section 143(1) and highlighted ... indicated in para 20(B) of the Audit report and challenged in the appeal before him, had rightly been made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 9. The ld. CIT(A) also held that various judicial pronouncements on the subject that had held that no such prima

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 242/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

considered the addition of Rs.29,16,547/- to the returned income of the assessee under section 143(1)(a)(iv) on account of late deposit of employee contribution to provident fund and ESI while processing the return of income. He reproduced the provisions of section 143(1) and highlighted ... indicated in para 20(B) of the Audit report and challenged in the appeal before him, had rightly been made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 9. The ld. CIT(A) also held that various judicial pronouncements on the subject that had held that no such prima

Sotc Travel Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3758/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2023-24 Sotc Travel Limited, Dcit, Circle-3(3)(1), 13Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Nm Joshi Marg, New Marine Lines, Delisle Road, S.O., Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan : Aagcs6725D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pratiksha P.Jain Revenue By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-08-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Kolkata [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 29-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Taken Us Through Ground No.2 Of The Assessee‟S Appeal & Submitted That The Addl/Jcit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Action Of The Ao/Cpc, In Making The Addition Of Rs.18,11,71,802/- U/S. 41(1) Of The Act, Without Appreciating That The Said Amount Has Already Been Considered By The Assessee While Filing Its Return Of Income & The Same Resulted In Double Taxation. In This Regard, Our

For Appellant: Ms. Pratiksha P.JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 143(1)(a)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP

Darshit Gunwantbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Darshit Gunantbhai Shah Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) B/2/236, Madhuvrund Society Vs. Ahmedabad. Ghatlodia Ahmedabad 380 061. Pan : Awmps 9760 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 25.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2021– 22, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.4,67,802/- Made Under Section 43B Of The Act By The Was Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 43B

Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore. An intimation dated 22.07.2022 was issued proposing an adjustment of Rs.4,67,802/- under section 143(1)(a)(iv), based on a mismatch between the computation of income and disclosures in the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD. The intimation was sent by e-mail ... previous year but disallowable under section 43B claimed in return and audit report 3.3 The adjustment was thus made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) for "disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return". 3.4 The assessee