← 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 Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 110/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 109/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 108/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 107/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 106/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Mafatlal Harakchandji Bothra, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.-19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1002/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemaftlal Harkchandji Ito – 19(2)(3) Bothrac/O. D.C 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Bothra & Co. Llp (Cp) Matru Mandir, Vs. (Formerly Known As Tardeo Road, D.C Bothra & Co), Mumbai-400007. 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aggpb3538C (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar Singh.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Maftlal Harkchandji ITO – 19

Anil Premchand Motiramani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Thane

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

ITA 3017/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Pratap N. Sharma
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 54F

under section 54 of the Act is correct and thus be allowed. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 14/12/2018 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee sold the old flat on 11/02/2016 and thus

Tpg Growth II Makets Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5Section 9Section 92C(3)

Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: The present appeal is directed against Assessment Order dated, 1. 28/04/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2017-18, as per directions issued by CIT (Dispute

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 29/03/2011 passed under section 143(3) of the Act assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.22196,46,82,210 after making certain additions/disallowances to the income declared ... complete working of the provision of the liability as per the actuarial valuation done by the assessee. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that assessee’s claim of deduction is not allowable under

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 29/03/2011 passed under section 143(3) of the Act assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.22196,46,82,210 after making certain additions/disallowances to the income declared ... complete working of the provision of the liability as per the actuarial valuation done by the assessee. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that assessee’s claim of deduction is not allowable under

Veena Devi, Muzaffarpur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi Pr. Cit, Patna-1 Vs Krishnapuri, Nh 28 Bhagwanpur Chowk Muzaffarpur - 842001 [Pan: Aoyps8291P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Maskara, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 23/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighteen (18) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Ld Pcit, Patna Is Wrong, Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Maskara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “पटना“ "यायपीठ पटना IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA (Heard from Kolkata Benches through

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. Rishav Dutta, Patna

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

ITA 51/PAT/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri M. Kr. Mashi, CA
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon vs. Gurcharna Kumar Sethi, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 9302/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Gurcharna Kumar Sethi, Circle-1(1), 3302, Sec-23, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan: Acqps7554R Co No.37/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gurcharna Kumar Sethi, Vs. Dcit, 3302, Sec-23, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana. Pan: Acqps7554R

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 153C

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

Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 672/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 672/Del/2018 (A.Y 2008-09)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 234BSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 43B

erred in initiating and completing I upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings completed by the Ld. AO under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act without appreciating that the said reassessment is bad in law and void-ab-initio. 2. That on the fact

Ochanthuruth Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Cochin vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(5), Kochi

ITA 91/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 7Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

M/S. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The ACIT, Cir.-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 166/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 166/Rjt/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Classic Network Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner 202, Arpan Complex, Kalawad Vs Of Income-Tax, Road, Opp. Swami Narayan Circle-2(1), Temple, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot Pan : Aabcc 8197 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40a

arising out of the order dated 28.12.2018 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income- tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We have heard the rival submissions ... made by the respective parties and also perused the relevant material available on record. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act in respect of the assessee was completed on 21.03.2016 determining the total income at Rs.10,55,74,935/- upon making M/s. Classic Network Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT

Shri Kiran Kasturchand Shah, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 282/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.282/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kiran Kasturchand Shah, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat 235-236, Shankheshwar Complex, Kailash Nagar, Sagrampura, Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agzps1397K Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 24/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Property less than the value as per stamp authority [u/s 56(2) or any other relevant section] (Business ITR). The Scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was finalized in assessee`s case on 30.07.2020, accepting the Return Income i.e. Rs.23

Rushi Pravinchandra Raskapoor, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 135/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.135/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rushi Pravinchandra Principal Commissioner Of Raskapoor, Road No.11 Income-Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs. Udhna Industries Estate, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-394210 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abmpr 0305 E (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitin Gheewala, A.R राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/06/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”] Dated 16.01.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Begins By Pointing Out That Ld. Pcit Has Invoked His Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act On The Reason That As Per The Wage Register Of Assessee, For The Period Under Consideration, That Assessee Has Received An Amount Of Rs.2,46,500/- As Employee’S Contribution To Esic & Further An Amount Of Rs.6,144/- As Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund In Various Months. The Table Is Given In The Order Of Ld. Pcit On Pages-1 & 2 Of His Order, Wherein Total Esic Amount Is Shown At Rs.2,46,500/- & Total Employee’S Provident Fund Amount Is Shown At Rs.6,144/- Respectively. The Ld. Pcit Noted That Employee’S Contribution Is An Income In The Hands Of The Employers As Per Section 2(24)(X) Of The Act, If It Is Not Deposited By Employers

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gheewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

Hubergroup India Private Limited, Vapi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Plot No.808/E, Phase-Ii, Income Tax, Valsad, Room Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 No.301, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pan No. Aaach 7063 F Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

sake of brevity) dated 30.03.2022 for assessment year (AY) 2018-19 in revising the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act dated 25.10.2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. “1. The order ... accepting return of income, vide intimation dated 11.04.2019. However, revised ROI was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act vide order dated 25.10.2021. The Assessing Officer, during assessment proceedings noted that in Form 3CEB (Transfer Pricing Report) the reported

Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

Surat [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], dated 12.09.2019, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 29.03.2023. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee