← 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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. Pokhrana Impex Private Limited, Surat

In the result, all the grounds of appeal which is in the form of narrative, is dismissed

ITA 411/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Pokhrana Impex Private Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), 203, Sheetal Chamber, Bhaja Bhai Vs. Surat. Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. Pan No. Aabcp 7359 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

immediately preceding assessment year, no such doubt was raised about the genuineness of business activities and the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The books of account were accepted in previous assessment years. There cannot be a case where the Assessing Officer accepted the books ... immediately preceding assessment year, no such doubt was raised about the genuineness of business activities and the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The books of account were accepted in previous assessment years. There cannot be a case where the Assessing Officer accepted the books

Tarlok Singh Punihani, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-19 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 1746/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

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

Narinder Singh Punihani, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 1745/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

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

Bhoop Kaur Anand, India vs. ACIT, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), India

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

ITA 1475/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

JCIT(OSD) Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Ace Mega Structure Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad Up

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4515/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4515/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jcit(Osd), Vs Ace Mega Structure Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1, B-47, Surya Nagar, Sahibabad, Noida, U.P.-201301 Ghaziabad, U.P.-201005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakca8694D

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153A

63/Del/2022 ACE Mega Structure Pvt. Ltd. income on 24.08.2011, declaring total income of Rs.9,35,130/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153(D) of 1961 Act. Rs. 9,09,110/- was added on account of unexplained cash under Section 69 of 1901 Act. Rs.15 ... case2 the first question was whether notice under Section 143(2) would be mandatory for the purpose of making the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. It was observed:- “3. The Appellate Tribunal held, while affirming the decision of CIT (A) that non-issue of notice under Section

Pvr Pictures Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3843/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Garg, Adv. & Shri ParveenFor Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

Parkash Chand Sachdeva, Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2991/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Gogia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR

Gurmukh Das Gangwani, Bhatapara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 246/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 246/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Gurmukh Das Gangwani House No.199, Gurunanak Ward, Bhatapara (C.G.)-493 118 Pan : Ainpg1689A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Shri Prakash Kakaldas Shah, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(4), Surat

In the result, this part of ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 217/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Prakash Kakaldas Shah, The Ito, Ward-1(3)(4), 702, Sterling Apartment, Nr. Priya Surat. Vs. Hotel, Athwagate, Surat – 395003. Pan : Abips4373F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

turn arise against the additions made by Assessing Officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(4), Surat, in assessment order dated 04.12.2018, under section 143(3). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on subject the learned ... income of Rs.2,39,200/- was also treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 in the assessment order dated 04.12.2018 passed under section 143(3). 5. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that

Tge Gas Engineering Gmbh, Germany vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1958/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Tge Gas Engineering Gmbh, Vs Dcit, Mildred-Scheel-Str., 1 D-53175 Circle-International Bonn, Germany, Germany. Taxation 3(1)(1), Pan-Aadct7387B Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Gangadhar Panda, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018- 19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), International Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 28.07.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “D” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 92C

adjustments. In view of the order passed by the 14 AY: 2016-17 TPO, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act accepting the income returned by the Assessee. He submitted, since, the mandate of the Assessing Officer was to examine the limited ... have been called upon to examine the issue as to whether learned CIT was justified in holding the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, so as to, subject it to proceedings under section

Manohar Education Society, New Delhi vs. ITO(E) - Ward, Rohtak

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

ITA 7485/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Manohar Education Society, Vs Ito(E), Prop. Cambridge School, Ward, Rohtak. Garhi Bolni Road, Rewari, Haryana. Pan-Aaatm6003F Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2023

Section 10Section 13Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 164(2)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2016

M/S. Shri Ganesha Global Gulal Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur

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

ITA 67/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 67/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shri Ganesha Global Gulal Pvt. Ltd. Sardar Patel Timber Market, Industrial Area, Bhanpuri, Raipur (C.G.)-493 221 Pan : Aavcs5982K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: None (withdrawal application)For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 263

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

Smt. Amina Anvar, Kollam vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Alappuzha

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

ITA 850/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Ms. Padmavathy S

Jigneshbhai Rasikbhai Savalia, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 133/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigneshbhai Rasikbhai Savalia, Income Tax Officer, Ward B/1 Bombay Market, No.1(2)(2), Aayakar Vs Umarwada, Surat-395003 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan No: Aobps 3537 D Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 21.02.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 09.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer/ Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(2) Surat, Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.02.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.69,210/- U/S 271B Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Jigneshbhai R. Savalia 2. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Delete Any Ground(S) Either Before Or In The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

assessee was filed on 29.02.2016 declaring income of Rs.4,93,320/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 03.11.2017 in accepting returned income. Subsequently Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271B by holding that during the course of assessment ... filed along with returned income. It is a matter of fact that Assessing Officer passed assessment order under 8 Jigneshbhai R. Savalia section 143(3) on 03.11.2017 in accepting the returned income of assessee. 9. I find that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apex

Nitaben Kiritbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(5), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 243/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Nitaben Kiritbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)((5), At & Post: Ariyana, Sadak Mohallo, Surat. Tal: Olpad, Surat – 395005. Pan : Bjqpp0429N Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44A

village. The Assessing Officer treated the entire of amount Rs.11,00,000/- as unexplained investment in the assessment order dated 15.12.2016 passed under section 143(3). 4. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee field appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

The Kundayam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO Ward 4, Kollam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Santosh P. Abraham, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15(1)(A)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT

M/S Royal Indian Holdings Limited, Kochi vs. Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 2(2), Kochi

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

ITA 878/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT

Rafeek, Kerala vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 861/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S. & Sa.No.58/Coch/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.861/Coch/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rafeek Vs Ito, Ward-3 Kochukaleeckal A.N.Puram Krishnapuram Alappuzha Kappilmekku Kerala-688 011 Alappuzha-690 533 Pan – Akjpr2342F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Suresh Varma, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 .03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2021. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. The Assessee Also Filed A Stay Application Seeking To Stay The Recovery Of Outstanding Tax Arrears.

For Appellant: Sri Suresh Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Ms. Padmavathy S

Karimthottuva Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kollam vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Kollam

ITA 848/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Karimthottuva Service Co-Operative Vs. The Assessing Officer, Bank Ltd., Ward – 2, No.2594, Kunnathur East, Sasthamkotta, Kollam. Kollam – 690 540. Pan : Aaaak 9696 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Anil D Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT