← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)(a)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)(iii)74 judgments

LAXMINARAYAN RAMSWARUP MANIYAR,JALGAON vs. CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

ITA 1203/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1203/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Laxminarayan Ramswarup Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jalgaon. Maniyar, Sitaram Ramswarup, 105, Polan Peth, Dana Bazar, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aaqpm9220L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay V. Kawdia Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) In The Absence Of Conditions Precedent For Invoking Provisions Of S. 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Adjustment Of Rs. 8,03,196/- Made By Cpc U/S 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act By Denying The Set Off Of Brought Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation Of Earlier Years Against Current Years Income.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay V. KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs.8,03,196/- against the current year’s income by invoking the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iii) and also made an addition of Rs.73,577/- to the income of the assessee and consequently an income of Rs.16,09,770/- was determined ... relevant earlier years return of income were furnished within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and therefore section 143(1)(a)(iii)is not attracted. Ld. AR also contended that the addition of Rs.73,577/- made by CPC is not correct since assessee himself has disallowed

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6160/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

when such a deduction was "on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible" [see section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression "prima facie inadmissible" came up for consideration

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6159/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

when such a deduction was "on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible" [see section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression "prima facie inadmissible" came up for consideration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1) dated August 13, 2017 denying carry forward of loss of Rs

ITA 1170/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 92E

1) of the Act which is without jurisdiction and beyond the permissible adjustments contemplated under that section. It was submitted that under section 143(1)(a)(iii) of the Act, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2016, with effect from April 1, 2017, no adjustment could have been made ... make the adjustment is palpably incorrect and contrary to the express provisions of the Act. 6. It is pertinent to note that section 143(1)(a)(iii) of the Act empowering the Assessing Officer to make adjustments while processing the return on account of filing of return beyond due date

RAMESH CHANDER MAHAJAN,PANCHKULA vs. CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 235/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.235/Chd/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ramesh Chander Mahajan, बनाम The Ito, Flat No. 803, Tower 11A. Ward-3, Suncity Parikrama, Panchkula Sector 20, Panchkula 134109 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Acppm6667 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By :Sh. T.N. Singla, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per A.D. Jain: This Is Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2017-18, Filed Against The Addition Of Rs. 33,32,734/- Made On Account Of Difference In Income From Other Sources As Shown In The Income Tax Return & The Tax Audit Report In Form No. 26As, Which Addition Has Been Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Sh. T.N. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 194ASection 57

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

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2756/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

when such a deduction was "on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible" [see section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression "prima facie inadmissible" came up for consideration

M/S. JAI ENTERPRISES,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU

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

ITA 107/RPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.107/Rpr/2021) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came up for consideration

PRADEEP KUMAR DHURVE,DURG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

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

ITA 302/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 302/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Kumar Dhurve Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aanpd6067H

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came up for consideration

BUNDELAS SECURITAS AND CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 60/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came up for consideration

BUNDELAS SECURITAS AND CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 59/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came up for consideration

PADMA DHURWAY, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

ITA 272/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Padma Dhurway, Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001. Pan : Aarpd5814C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came up for consideration

BHUNESHWAR PRASAD SAHU, BALODA BAZAR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHATAPARA, BHATAPARA

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 109/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.109/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Bayps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Khapradih, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came up for consideration

GURMEET SINGH HORA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 45/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Aug 2023AY 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

when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came up for consideration

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , 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)

amount in the return of income and the case of the assessee company does not fall under the said sub-clause. 6. Section 143(1)(a)(iii) i. It is submitted that u/s 143(1)(a)(iii), only disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which

SATPAL SINGH SANDHU,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 4/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came up for consideration

M/S. GARUDA SECURITY SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1052/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came up for consideration

M/S. GARUDA SECURITY SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1051/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came up for consideration

WATERFIELD TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI, 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

when such a deduction was "on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible" [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression "prima facie inadmissible" came up for consideration

M/S. ANI INTEGRATED SERVICES LIMITED,THANE vs. DCIT, CC- 15 (1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2067/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2020-21
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

when such a deduction was “on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible” [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression “prima facie inadmissible” came up for consideration

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

when such a deduction was "on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible" [see Section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression "prima facie inadmissible" came up for consideration

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4