“Section 143(1)(a)(vi)”

BAMISHA SHARAD NAGDA,MUMBAI vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bamishasharadnagda Ito,Ward-3(5), Thane A-504, Orbit Towers, Nathpai Nagar, Vs B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai-400077. Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, [Pan No. Adlpn 6590 Q Wagle Estate, Thane-West, Maharashtra-400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Sharad Nagda 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 9,28,238/- under Section 143(1)(a) (vi) of the Act being incorrect and untenable in law may be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances ... under section 10, which were not part of total income as per section 10 and could not be considered making adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Act. Since power under section 143(1)(a)(vi) is limited in the manner to determine the correct total income

MANISHA LAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC BENGALURU, DCIT, CPC BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Manisha Lal Dcit, Cpc D-422, Karachi Society Bangaluru New Link Road Vs. Adheri West Mumbai-400 053. Pan : Acfpl0485P Appellant Respondent

appellant in the subsequent assessment years. The appellant further is stated that if the receipts are completely omitted then the provision of section 143(1)(a)(vi) shall be applicable. In our case, the assessee has not omitted the receipts, in fact the assessee has followed the Cash basis ... accounting and hence in view of the same section 143(1)(a)(vi) is not applicable. "However the appellant has filed to prove that he been consistently following cash basis of accounting and that the receipts as per form No. 26 As have dully been reflected the returns. Onus

SHILPA PRABHAKAR KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Dcit Centralized Processing 3 Neel Sagar, 1280 Prabhadevi Centre, Seaface Prabhadevi, Vs. Bengaluru-560 500. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Brhpk 8129 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

This action of CPC is in conformity declared in the ITR. This action of CPC is in conformity with the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the with the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the 6.4 It is also a matter of fact that ... also a matter of fact that the provisions of section 6.4 It is also a matter of fact that the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Act empowers the CPC for adjustment 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Act empowers the CPC for adjustment 143(1

WANBURY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No. 109/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Wanbury Limited बिधम / Adit, Cpc 10Th Floor, Section 30- 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Vs. No 48/1 48/2, A Bsel Tech Park, B Beratenaagrahareabegur, Wing, Opp. Vashi Hosur Rd, Uttarahallihobli, Railway Station, Vashi Bengaluru 560100 Mumbai 400705 स्थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp5939P (अपीलाथी .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) /Appellant)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

K H & ASSOCIATES ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Associates 6. Undisputedly, while processing the return of income filed by the assessee, CPC, Bangalore has invoked the provisions contained under section 143(1)(a)(vi) which was applicable for A.Y. 2017-18 only, the year under consideration, as the same were thereafter abolished and made the adjustment under section ... income of Rs.59,236/- was offered under the head “income from business or profession”. Even otherwise adjustment made by the CPC under section 143(1)(a)(vi) is beyond the scope of section and power of CPC. Furthermore, instead of 7 M/s. KH & Associates sticking to the section referred

SERENITY TRADERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A.O) 14(3) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

INSUREKOT SPORTS P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CPC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Noted The Facts Of The Case & Assessee’S Submission As Under :- “Assessee Has Availed Of A Franchiseeship Of Team Puneri Paltan Which Is A Participating Team In The Pro Kabaddi League Organized By Mashal Sports Private Limited. During Fy 2016 17 Ay 2017 18 It Received Prize Money Of Rs 3000000 Being The Third Placed Team Of The Event. The Same Is Accounted & Shown Under The Revenue From Operations As Prize Money. The Same Is 2 Insurekot Sports Pvt. Ltd.

done on six reasons mentioned therein. Though no specific reason has been mentioned prima facie the adjustment is on account of section 143(1)(a(vi) of the Act. This limb of the Act prescribe for the addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form