← All Phrases

“Section 176(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 176Section 176(3)8 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 176(3) is CIT v. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd. (48 Taxmann.com 349), cited in 38 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 176(3)

CIT v. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd.
48 Taxmann.com 349 · 2014 · High Court
38
citing judgments

A payment for non-compete fees creates a commercial right and is considered an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii).

Famina Knit Fabs v. ACIT
176 ITD 246 · 2019 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

Income surrendered during a survey, if relating to unaccounted receivables of a business, is treated as business income. This allows for set-off of legitimate business expenses against such surrendered income, making the assessee eligible for deductions on that income.

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 33 of 176 4.17 In Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT
103 ITR 777 · 1976 · Supreme Court
20
citing judgments

If the primary purpose of a trust is charitable, an ancillary object that is not itself charitable will not disqualify the trust from being considered a valid charity.

Smt. Padmavathi Jaikrishna v. Addl. CIT
166 ITR 176 · 1987 · Supreme Court
13
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed moneys for the payment of income tax is not a permissible deduction. Expenditure incurred to meet personal liability, rather than for earning income, is not deductible.

Sheo Narain Jaiswal & Ors. v. ITO
176 ITR 35 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated by an Assessing Officer who does not exercise their jurisdiction independently but acts at the behest of a superior authority are invalid due to the non-satisfaction of a condition precedent.

ITO v. MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD
176 ITR 529 · 1989 · Supreme Court
10
citing judgments

If an assessee makes a full and true disclosure of all material facts, and the Assessing Officer accepts the disclosed documents and treats the transaction as genuine while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot later reopen the assessment on the ground of failure to disclose material facts.

Judgments citing Section 176(3)

Vivek Industries, Vijayawada vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

ITA 133/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.133/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vivek Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8-1, Kamayyathopu Kanuru, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aanfm5215A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 150Section 54DSection 54F

firm had not filed any application intimating the discontinuance of its business with the concerned Assessing Officer as required per the mandate of section 176(3) of the Act. 18. Be that as it may, we are of a firm conviction that the discontinuance of the business of the assessee

J. P. Marketing Mehsana, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

ITA 999/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, andFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

partnership was still in existence. 8. He also drew our attention to the finding of the AO, referring to the provisions of section 176(3) of the Act, and section 189 of the Act, for his finding that the partnership firm still continued to exist. The contention of the ld.counsel ... Further, the assessee must have to give a notice to the A.O. about the dissolution/discontinuance of the entity/business as per provisions of section 176(3) of the Act. However, no such notice was given by the assessee. Even Shri Bharat Chaturdas Patel has stated in statement taken on oath during

J. P. Marketing Mehsana, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 987/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

Section 147Section 250(6)

partnership was still in existence. 8. He also drew our attention to the finding of the AO, referring to the provisions of section 176(3) of the Act, and section 189 of the Act, for his finding that the partnership firm still continued to exist. The ITA No.985

J. P. Marketing Mehsana, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

ITA 986/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, andFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

partnership was still in existence. 8. He also drew our attention to the finding of the AO, referring to the provisions of section 176(3) of the Act, and section 189 of the Act, for his finding that the partnership firm still continued to exist. The contention of the ld.counsel ... Further, the assessee must have to give a notice to the A.O. about the dissolution/discontinuance of the entity/business as per provisions of section 176(3) of the Act. However, no such notice was given by the assessee. Even Shri Bharat Chaturdas Patel has stated in statement taken on oath during

J. P. Marketing Mehsana, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

ITA 985/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, andFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250(6)

partnership was still in existence. 8. He also drew our attention to the finding of the AO, referring to the provisions of section 176(3) of the Act, and section 189 of the Act, for his finding that the partnership firm still continued to exist. The ITA No.985 ... Further, the assessee must have to give a notice to the A.O. about the dissolution/discontinuance of the entity/business as per provisions of section 176(3) of the Act. However, no such notice was given by the assessee. Even Shri Bharat Chaturdas Patel has stated in statement taken on oath during

Manohars Catering, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1393/BANG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Manohars Catering, Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax & / Or The Partners/ Circle-1, Bangalore Legal Representatives Of (Present Jurisdiction-Income Tax The Partners Of Manohars Officer-Ward7(2)(3), Bangalore) Catering As Stipulated U/S V. 189(1), 189(3) & 189(4) Of The 1961 Act Number 666, Indiranagar 1St Stage Bengaluru-560038 Karnataka Pan:Aalfm1212B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Raghvendra, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Raghvendra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 37Section 40

affairs as to whether it stood dissolved or it is an existing entity although business stood discountinued. Reference is drawn to provisions of Section 176(3), 189(1) 189(3) and 189(4) of the 1961 Act. Section 176(3) of the 1961 Act, which clearly stipulates that in case ... against the person who withheld the same.Thus, there is a failure on the part of the assessee in making compliance of Section 176(3). The A.Y. 2008-09 Manohars Catering assessee is a partnership firm, and Reference is drawn to Section 189(1), which is relevant. Similarly Section 189(3

Real Cargo Mumbai, Arvalli vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Modasa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 268/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. This Appeal In Ita No.268/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Filed By The Assessee Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 25.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 , Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056508501(1), Which Has In Turn Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Divatia ,Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav,CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 189(1)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 254Section 40

closure of its business many years back. Thus, the assessee concealed this fact from the authorities. Reference is drawn to provisions of Section 176(3), 189(1) 189(3) and 189(4) of the 1961 Act. At this stage, it is relevant to cite Section 176(3 ... against the person who withheld the same.Thus, there is a failure on the part of the assessee in making compliance of Section 176(3). The assessee is a partnership firm, and Reference is drawn to Section 189(1), which is relevant. Similarly Section 189(3) provides that in case

M/S. Steecon Infrastructure, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chajed and Mr SumitFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, AR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

firm to the notice of the Assessing Officer within 15 days of the discontinuance of business/dissolution of firm as required under section 176(3) of the Act, therefore Assessing Officer cannot be faulted for issuing notice for reopening of the assessment in the name of the firm. 8. Regarding