← 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)

Nidhi Agarwal, Ghaziabad vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 198/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Stating That The Father Of Chartered Accountant

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

India International Centre, Central Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2940/DEL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 India International Centre, Vs Cit(E), 40, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi. Lodhi Estate, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaati0660C

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Mohan Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT,DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurugram

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

ITA 1523/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Assessing Officer ["AO"] under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"), to the 2 ITA No.1523/Del./2022 extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and void ... basis intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. 16.1 That AO has erred in passing a non-speaking order under section 143(3) of the Act and as such no details or findings or reference is mentioned basis which addition is made relying on the intimation issued

Showtime Events India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4239/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Raghvendra Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Belgavi vs. Shree Bhagyalaxmi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Belagavi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 66/PAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Ghali, ARFor Respondent: Shri Badrinath Yamaji
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH :: PANAJI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

illegal, void ab initio and not justifiable, therefore, deserve to be annulled. 2. That learned PCIT erred in holding that the order section 143(3) passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... cannot be declared to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. In the following cases, it was held that assessment framed under section 143(3) cannot be revised on ground that desired inquiry was not made. (a) Malabar Industrial

M/S. Maa Tarani Logistics Ltd, Joda vs. ACIT Cir.-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & JaydeepFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 1aSection 234Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH

M/S Tera Naturals Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 968/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Tera Naturals Ito Ward 3(3)(3), Resources Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 672, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, 401/411 Raheja Centre, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaect 8904 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Deshmukh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thackar/NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

M/S. Topman International Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Topman International Ltd. Acit, Circle – 11(3)(1) J-303, 3Rd Floor, Tex Centre, Room No. 427, 4Th Floor, Near Hdfc Bank, Off Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Chandiwali Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 072

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 703/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

31/03/2011, declaring a total income of Rs.6,80,380. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 23/10/2013, determining the total income at Rs.6,80,380. Subsequently, on the basis of the information received from ... exemption as claimed under section 10(38) of the Act be allowed. 7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 28/12/2017, passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the financials of the companies

Dcitm Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Invenire Petrodyne Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1793/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrydcit, Circle - 14(1)(2) M/S. Invenire Petrodyne Ltd. Room No. 455, 4Th Floor The Metropolitan, Plot No. C26/27 E-Block, 5Th Floor, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai 400020 Bandra (East), Mumbai (Mahrashtra ) -400051 Pan – Aaact0090N Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. Ar Respondent By: None (Adjournment Letter) Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.08.2023 O R D E R Per: N.K. Choudhry, Jm This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2023 Impugned Herein Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For Ay 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer (Ao), Vide Order Dated 15.05.2018 Under Section 154 Of The Act, Though Rectified The Original Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (3) Of The Act, However, Did Not Grant Interest On Refund Arising Out Of The Self-Assessment Tax Paid By The Assessee Under Section 244A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. ARFor Respondent: None (Adjournment letter)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(aa)Section 250

Assessing Officer (AO), vide order dated 15.05.2018 under section 154 of the Act, though rectified the original order dated 28.02.2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Act, however, did not grant interest on refund arising out of the self-assessment tax paid by the Assessee under

Candy Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 6(2)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1358/MUM/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrym/S. Candy Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer- C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal 6(2)(1) Apartment, Taki Road Vs. Room No. 510, 5Th Floor Tulinj, Nallasopara (E) Ayakar Bhawan, M. K . Road, Thane 401209 Mumbai-400020 Pan – Aaacc2733M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ld. Ca Respondent By: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:21.08.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH, MUMBAI Before Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Janseva Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-17, Mumbai

ITA 1225/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhjanseva Co-Operative Vs. Pcit-17 Credit Society Limited Room No. 120, 1 St Floor, 408, Maker Bhavan No. 3, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To 21, New Marine Lines, C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400 020 Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaj7811P Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Tanzil Padvekar Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor Date Of Hearing 25.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit-17, Mumbai, Dated 30.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Erred In Passing The Impugned Order Under Section 263 Of The Act By Invoking Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Jurisdiction. Hence, The Impugned Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Without Meeting Jurisdictional Requirement As Twin Mandatory Conditions Are Not Fulfilled For Invoking Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Has Erred In Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society V/S. Income Tax

For Appellant: Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

P a g e | 1 Janseva Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. VS. PCIT-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F

Tech Data(Singapore) Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (It) Circle -4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2367/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2367/मुं/ 2022 (िन.व.2019-20) Tech Data (Singapore) Pte Limited, 10, #05-17/20 Techpoint, Ang Mo Kio Street 65, Singapore -569059 Pan: Aagct-0951-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle -4(1)(2) Mumbai . ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Avneesh Tiwari सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 19/07/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act], For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Five Grounds. The Gist Of Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Is As Under: (I) Challenge To Validity Of Assessment – Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Issued Without Authority.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Avneesh Tiwari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 274

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “आई ”, मुंबई पीठ "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी गगन गोयल, लेखाकार सद"य

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 717/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar a/w Mr. Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Everest Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1421/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar a/w Mr. Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN

Dy CIT-1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1 section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment 961, for the assessment year

M/S the Maharashtra State Co. Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1 section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment 961, for the assessment year

Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited (on Behalf of Erstwhile Sterling Holiday Resorts(India) Limited), Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 3793/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3793/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sterling Holiday Resorts बिधम/ Pcit-2 Limited (On Behalf Of Room No.344, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Erstwhile Sterling Holiday Aayakar Bhavan, Resorts (India) Limited) Mumbai-400020. Thomas Cook Building, D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct7079G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By: Smt Anne Varghese (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Only Issue On Which The Ld. Pcit Has Invoked His Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act Is In Respect Of Following Issues: - (A) Carry Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation For Ay. 2004-5 To 2009-10 Of M/S. Manchanda Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Amounting To Rs.54,29,744/-. (B) Carry Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation For Ay. 2005-06, 2008-09 Of M/S. Sterling Holiday Resorts (I) Ltd., Amounting To Rs.5,51,57,288/-. (C) Carry Forward Business Loss Of M/S. Manchanda Resorts Pvt. Ltd. For Ay. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Amounting To Rs.7,16,96,555/-.”

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Smt Anne Varghese (Sr. AR)
Section 263Section 32(2)Section 72A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT