← All Phrases

“Section 143(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(3)45,044 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(3) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(3)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Judgments citing Section 143(3)

Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 148

Delhi dated 25/05/2023 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2012-13 which in turn arise from the order dated 14.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, by the ACIT, Circle-01, Jaipur. 2 Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2. The assessee

Manmeet Singh Chhabra, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 319/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Chawla, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

declared Shri Manmeet Singh Chhabra, Sawai Madhopur. in the return filed under section 139. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the IT Act vide order dated 22.04.2021 at a total income of Rs. 8,44,526/- by making an addition ... passed ex parte for non compliance of the notices issued and not furnishing the documentary evidences, by upholding the assessment order under section 143(3)/153A of the IT Act, whereby the AO made addition of Rs. 1,16,936/-, therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances

Manmeet Singh Chhabra, Sawaimadhopur vs. DCIT Central-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 318/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Chawla, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

declared Shri Manmeet Singh Chhabra, Sawai Madhopur. in the return filed under section 139. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the IT Act vide order dated 22.04.2021 at a total income of Rs. 8,44,526/- by making an addition ... passed ex parte for non compliance of the notices issued and not furnishing the documentary evidences, by upholding the assessment order under section 143(3)/153A of the IT Act, whereby the AO made addition of Rs. 1,16,936/-, therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances

Sunita Khinchi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer 6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 305/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

passed ex parte for non compliance of the notices issued and not furnishing the documentary evidences, by partly upholding the assessment order under section 143(3) of the IT Act, whereby the AO made various additions, therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case

Warner Bros. International Television Distribution Inc., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internationa Taxation )-4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 848/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manuj SabharwalFor Respondent: 10.10.2023
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Gurukrupa Hospital and Polyclinic, Bhayander East Thane vs. Central Circle 3, Thane

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly partly allowed

ITA 2800/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Before Shri Prashant Maharishi, A & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri (Dr.) Kishore Dhule, CIT D.R
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

assessment order appeal of the assessee against the assessment appeal of the assessee against the assessment passed under section 143 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the 1961(the 1961(the Act) Act) Act) dated dated dated 17/12/2019 17/12/2019

Ranjita Rangnath Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO, 29(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2498/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

1 ITA 2498/Mum/2023 Ranjita Rangnath Mhatre IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T

Kmtc (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 2254/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Kmtc (India) Private Limited Cit(A) 2202, 22Nd Floor, Indiabulls Finance Mumbai -400 020 Centre, Tower 3, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aafck 2156 D (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2023 : 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 35D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM KMTC

Almech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2110/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Jm

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram Ld. Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Raghuveer Madanappa, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, JM I.T.A

Siemens Technology and Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC/ DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 92C

This appeal is against the final order of assessment passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (in short, the AO‟) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act (in short, „the Act‟) dated 29/01/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18. Besides raising various grounds contending ... final assessment order dated 29 January 2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ('the learned AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is barred by limitation in terms of the timeline prescribed under

Apm Terminals India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed, holding that the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and hence quashed

ITA 2511/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi, Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri Manish Kant and DeveshFor Respondent: Pravin D Salunkhe, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 80ISection 92C

Terminals India P Limited [ Assessee/ Appellant] [ Assessee/ Appellant] for assessment year 2018 for assessment year 2018 – 19 against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) against the assessment order passed under section 143(3 against the assessment order passed under section 143(3 read with section 144C (13) read ... adjustment was passed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA (3) of the Act on 31/07/2021. The draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act was passed on 30/09/2021. The objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel were filed on 19/09/2021

Dam Capital Advisors Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1991/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 92E

Transfer pricing adjustment of provision of expenses 1,28,75,981 4. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.9,71,70,100/-. The CIT(A), on further appeal, gave marginal relief to the assessee with regard

Mehul Prakash Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, W-27(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1(a) and (b) of the appeal are against reopening of assessment, in absence of any argument , are dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi, A Before Shri. Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Sandeep Singh Karhailit Assessment Year: Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Mehul Prakash Mehta Mr. Mehul Prakash Mehta V. Ito, W-27(1)(1) 27(1)(1) 401/402, Mahalaxmi Apartment 401/402, Mahalaxmi Apartment Mumbai 16, Akash, 90 Feet Road Akash, 90 Feet Road Nath Panth Road, Ghatkopar (E) Nath Panth Road, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aghpm8335M Pan No. Shri V. D. Parmar, A.R. Assessee By: Shri Mahita Nair, D.R. Revenue By: 12.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri Mahita Nair, D.RFor Respondent: 12.10.2023
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax (Appeals), 25, Mumbai (Learned CIT-A) dated 7 A) dated 7/12/2018, wherein the appeal filed against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) wherein the appeal filed against the assessment order passed under section 1 wherein the appeal filed against the assessment order passed under section ... genuineness of the purchases. Accordingly, he made addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, amounting to Rs.45,22,875/-. The order under section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act was passed on 15/3/2015, wherein total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.79,22,650/-. 05. The assessee

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Litloier Properties Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1979/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit, Circle-42(1)(1) Hanvant Singh Jabbar Singh Mumbai Ranawat Vs. C/204, Arihan Apt. Sodawala Lane, Govind Nagar, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 092 Pan/Gir No. Adxpr 7563 F (Assessee) : (Respondent) : None Assessee By Respondent By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned

For Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM DCIT

Dy.DIT., (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. Global Cricket Corporation Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4990/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Dy. Cit(It) – 3(1) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. Scindia House, R. No. 132, 1St Floor, C/O. S. R. Batliboi & Co. Vs. 18Th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai- 38 Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No. 83/Mum/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4990/Mum/2011) (Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. The Dy. Dit (It)-3(1) C/O. S R B C & Associates Mumbai- 400 038 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri P J Pardiwala/Aarati Sathe Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma : 16.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

The ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 171/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Dy. Cit(It) – 3(1) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. Scindia House, R. No. 132, 1St Floor, C/O. S. R. Batliboi & Co. Vs. 18Th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai- 38 Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No. 83/Mum/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4990/Mum/2011) (Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. The Dy. Dit (It)-3(1) C/O. S R B C & Associates Mumbai- 400 038 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri P J Pardiwala/Aarati Sathe Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma : 16.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Rohit Jainendra Jain, Faridabad vs. ACIT CC-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 8024/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,01,27,940/- vide his order dated 14.12.2018 under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed challenging the impugned addition of Rs. 2,28,98,878/- under section 43CA of the Act without referring the matter

Global Green Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4369/DEL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2004-05 Global Green Company Ltd., Dcit, Circle-12(1) First India Place, New Delhi. Tower ‘C’, Mehrauli Road, Vs. Gurgaon, Harnaya Pin: 122 002 (Pan:Aaacr0635H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

3. Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident corporate entity. Assessment in case of assessee was originally completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2006. Subsequently, the assessment order was revised under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that while computing book profit

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Rakesh Saraogi, Raipur

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

ITA 98/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 98/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rakesh Saraogi Prop. M/S. Madan Construction, Subhash Road, Gunj Para, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Ajjps3803P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Jitenderpal Singh Ahluwalia, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 247/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 247/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jitenderpal Singh Ahluwalia Opp. Prince Sanitation, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Ackpa2664C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: S/shri Sakshi Gopal Aggrawal &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

culled out as under: “5. FINDINGS AND DECISION: 5.1 The assessee is on appeal before this office against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 5.2 The assessee was provided multiple opportunities by this office to submit documents and make submissions in response