← 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)

Bhawarlal Tarachandji Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 1729/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1729 & 1730/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Rashesh P PatelFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(4)(c)

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1729 & 1730/Mum/2023 Bhawarlal Tarachandji Jain Vs., CIT (A) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Income Tax Officer -10(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Maiden Marketing India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1624/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhincome-Tax Officer Vs. M/S Maiden Marketing 10(2)(3), India Private Limited Room No. 212, 2 Nd Floor, 1601, Plot No. A-4, Cts Aayakar Bhavan, No. 694, Peninsula Park, Mumbai – 400020 16Th Floor, Fun Republic Lane, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicm7168E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)

holding that the issues of share capital and share premium were already examined at the time of the original assessment proceeding under section 143(3) of the Act and the additions on the same in the present proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 amount to exercise of power of review which

Pratik Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1467/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

address of the purchase party were furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO vide order dated 11/12/2019, passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act disallowed the long-term capital loss claim by the assessee and consequently not allowed the same to be carried forward. Even ... amounts were offered as income. However, in the absence of details, the AO vide order dated 11/12/2019, passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of sundry balance written off as the requirement of section

Pratik Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1464/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

address of the purchase party were furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO vide order dated 11/12/2019, passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act disallowed the long-term capital loss claim by the assessee and consequently not allowed the same to be carried forward. Even ... amounts were offered as income. However, in the absence of details, the AO vide order dated 11/12/2019, passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of sundry balance written off as the requirement of section

Pratik Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1462/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

address of the purchase party were furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO vide order dated 11/12/2019, passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act disallowed the long-term capital loss claim by the assessee and consequently not allowed the same to be carried forward. Even ... amounts were offered as income. However, in the absence of details, the AO vide order dated 11/12/2019, passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act rejected the claim of sundry balance written off as the requirement of section

Mp Ferrous and Non Ferrous India Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Cir-7(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwant Gupta a/wFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

account payee cheques for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 4. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 27/12/2016, passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that mere payment by cheques

Mp Ferrous and Non Ferrous India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwant Gupta a/wFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

account payee cheques for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 4. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 27/12/2016, passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that mere payment by cheques

Mukand Engineers Limited (Since Merged/Amalgamated With Mukand Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1246/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri M.A. GohelFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 32

disallowance is required to be made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 16/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and computed the disallowance of Rs. 18,45,867 under section 14A read

Maccaferri Environmental Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1189/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aakash UppalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 92C

under section 115JB of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and vide order dated 27/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 92CA the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 12,98,000 and tax payable was determined on Maccaferri ... section 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and vide order dated 29/12/2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 12,98,000 and tax payable

Maccaferri Environmental Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1188/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aakash UppalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 92C

under section 115JB of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and vide order dated 27/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 92CA the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 12,98,000 and tax payable was determined on Maccaferri ... section 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and vide order dated 29/12/2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 12,98,000 and tax payable

Ba Continuum India P.Ltd ( Since Merged Wotj Ba Cotinuum Solutions P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2271/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ba Continuum India Private Ito, Ward 9(1)(2), Limited (Since Merged With Ba Room No. 226, Vs. Continuum Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Building No. 5, K. Raheja Mind Mumbai-20. Space, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081. Pan No. Aaccc 3062 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Salil Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Shri Mangalaram, Pali vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pali

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

ITA 74/JODH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)

assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi) emanating from the assessment order under section 143(3) dated 28.12.2018 for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Shri Chutra Ram Choudhary, Barmer vs. Dc, Cen Cir-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 44/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary
Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 142(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P

Rajesh Kalra, Hanumangarh Town vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

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

ITA 37/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoterajesh Kalra, Vs. Dcit, Circle – 1, Prop. M/S. Zodiac Bikaner – 334001, Imaging & Diagnostic Rajasthan. Centre, Hanumangarh -335513, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Akapk9599E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Cit(A) & Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P

Bikaner Ceramics Private Limited, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

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

ITA 36/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotebikaner Ceramics Pvt Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Ltd.,Industrial Area, Bikaner, Bikaner-334001, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Rpan/Gir No. : Aaacb6690C Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kotharia, Ca.Ar Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kotharia, CA.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P

Ramdeo PAN Bhandar, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

In the result, the appeal filed by the asessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 86/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteram Deo Pan Bhandar Vs. Acit, Circle -1, Kem Road, Bikaner, Bikaner-334001, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aabfr3308M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P

Aman Arora, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 38/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Aman Arora, Dcit, 23, Sikh Colony, Udaipur, Vs Circle-1, Udaipur, (Rajasthan) Rajasthan Pan: Afupa0996C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur Dated 29.11.2018 Emanating From Order Of Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For A.Y. 2013-14 Dated 11.01.2016. Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed A Letter Dated 04Th August, 2023 2. That Assessee Has Opted For Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Department Has Issued Form No. 3, 4 & 5 To The Assessee. Assessee Had Enclosed Copies Of The Same. The Assessee Requested To Withdraw The Appeal. The Copy Of The Letter Is As Under:- Aman Arora

Section 143(3)

order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur dated 29.11.2018 emanating from order of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur under section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14 dated 11.01.2016. Ld. AR of the assessee filed a letter dated 04th August, 2023 2. that assessee

Prime Suitings Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-4, Bhilwara

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

ITA 440/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Prime Suitings Pvt. Ltd., D- Income Tax Officer, 5-6, Bhilwara Textile Market, Vs Ward-4, Bhilwara Pur Road, Bhilwara Pan: Aaacp8447P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06Th June, 2018 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Passed By Ito, Ward-4, Bhilwara On 30.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)

assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer dated 06th June, 2018 emanating from assessment order under section 143(3) passed by ITO, Ward-4, Bhilwara on 30.11.2017. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances

Shri Mahendra Kumar Goyal, HUF, Pali vs. ITO, Ward-2, Pali

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

ITA 213/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Mahendra Kumar Vs. Ito – Ward-2 Goyal Huf, Pali, Marwar, M/S Merita &Co,Ca Pali-306401, 244,Kamalanehru Rajasthan Nagar,Opp;Prakartic Chikitsa Kendra, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur-348008, Rajasthan Pan/Gir No. : Aaehm7139L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri N. R Mertia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal As Under: Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal Huf, Pali. 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-1), Jodhpur Has Erred In Law & Facts In Maintaining The Disallowance Of Interest Made By Ld. A.O Of Rs. 4,61,473/- (3,11,690/- + 1,49,783/-) By Invoking Sec. 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act Which The Ld. Cit(A) Erroneously & Unjustifiedly Held As Right Actions On The Part Of The Id. A.O. The Actions Being Erroneous & Unjustified May Kindly Be Cancelled. The Hon'Ble Itat May Kindly Allow The Appeal By Allowing The Claimed Interest As Revenue Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri N. R Mertia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P

Tarachand Jain, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/JODH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Punjawat.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P