← 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)

Transworld Terminals Dadri Private Limited (Formerly Albatross Inland Ports Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

ITA 2581/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 80Section 80GSection 80I

Transworld Terminals Dadri Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Albatross Inland Ports Pvt. Ltd.) expenditure and thereby assessed the income at Rs.25,27,91,832/- under section 143(3) of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the disallowance/addition

Maruti Ningappa Patil, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-1 Kalyan, Mumbai

ITA 2198/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

Capital Gain (LTCG) and unexplained cash deposit under section 69A respectively and thereby framed the assessment under section 147 read with read with section 143(3) and section 144B of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition by dismissing

DCIT- CC- 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Shree Global Tradefin Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1374/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 7(1) Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. Mumbai 35, Ashok Chambers, Vs. Broach Street, Devji Ratansey Marg, Mumbai-400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 2975 J (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

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

Manohar Manak Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18 whereby the PCIT had set aside the Assessment Order dated 30.12.2019 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act holding the same to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest Assessment Years ... supply of scrap on commission basis without actual delivery of any material. Accordingly, the case of the Appellant was reopened and order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was passed on 30.12.2019 after making addition of commission income of INR 43,39,857/-. 5. Thereafter

Arihant Associates, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blearihant Associates V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 Anand Tower-C, Bldg.42 Room No. 120, 1St Floor Tilak Nagar, Chembur Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai -400089 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aapfa1588C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ruturaj Gurjar Department Represented By : Shri R.M. Madhavi

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 263Section 314(8)Section 43C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Shyamm Mariwala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -6(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2494/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shyamm Mariwala, Ito Ward-6(3)(3), 216, Vasan Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400013. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Advpm 4940 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subhash Chhajed, Ar : Revenue By Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Subhash Chhajed, AR
Section 14ASection 68

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

Saigal Seatrade, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21 (3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7404/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the Assessment Order, dated 21.10.2016 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). 2. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year ... case of the Appellant was selected for 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 scrutiny and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on the Appellant vide Assessment Order, dated 21.10.2016. The Assessing Officer, inter alia, made following additions/disallowances: (i) disallowance of INR 11,17,964/- being adhoc disallowance

Salim Ibrahimbai Jaka, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cnetral Circle-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5147/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Salim Ibrahimbhai Jaka, Dy. Cit Central Circle- 2Nd Floor, Malhotra House, 3(3), Office No. 1 Opp. Gpo Fort, Vs. Room No. 1923, 19Th Mumbai-400 001. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Abppj 5700 N Appellant Respondent : Assessee By None : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 01/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by None
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

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

Divya Raghavan Vijayan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4352/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.4352/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Divya Raghavan Vijayan बिधम/ Acit Circle-3, Kalyan Shop No.7, Goalawli, Kalyan Shill 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Road, Opp Manpada Police Murbad Road, Station, Kalyan-421301 Dombivli East- 421201 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahupv7112M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shashikant Goyal Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Shashikant GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40A

3(3), Thane and the impugned order is passed by the ACIT-Circle 3, Kalyan. 3) The order of assessment passed under section 143(3) dated 14.12.2016 hasn't been delivered to the assessee prior to the date of limitation on 31.12.2016, but was rather hand delivered only

ACIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wyeth Lederle Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2912/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 7(3) Vs. M/S Wyeth Ltd Room No. 615, 6Th Floor (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Mk Road, Worli Level 6& 7 Plating Mumbai – 400 020. Plot No. C-59, G Block Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1451A Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 7(3) Vs. M/S Wyeth Ltd Room No. 615, 6Th Floor (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Mk Road, Worli Level 6& 7 Plating Mumbai – 400 020. Plot No. C-59, G Block Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1451A Appellant .. Respondent

For Respondent: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 801Section 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

M/S Kohinoor Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-10(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 42/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.42/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Kohinoor Merchants Pvt. Ltd........................................................…… …. Appellant 28/1B, Bhattacharjee Para Road, Kolkata-700063. [Pan:Aacck8051A] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(3), Kolkata...................…....................................................….. Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 21, 2022 आदेश / Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘एसएमसी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA डॉ"टर

M/S K.M. Khadim & Co., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263

citations made by the ld. Counsel before us, we are of the considered view that it is the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act which could be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue but not the assessment as framed ... financial year in 7 I.T.A. No. 278/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s K. M . Khadim & Co. which the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was framed, i.e. 26.12.2016 and the limitation period expired on 31.03.2019, whereas the ld. PCIT has set aside and revised the assessment order

P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-2, Kolkata P-37A, Nani Gopal Roychowdhury Vs. Avenue, Anada Palit Road, Kolkata- 700014. Pan: Aadcp 0094 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Respondent By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Pr. Cit, Kolkata-2 Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/104144167(1) Dated 24.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Through This Appeal, The Assessee Has Essentially Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax For Invoking The Impugned Revisionary Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act & Passing The Order Thereunder For Which, The Assessee Has Taken As Many As Eight Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Not Reproduced For The Sake Of Brevity. The Two Issues Which Have Been Considered By The Ld. Pr. Cit For The Purpose Of Invoking The Revisionary Proceedings & Referred In The Grounds Of Appeal Are (I) Deduction U/S 80G Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 20,000/- For Which No Evidence In Support Of Payment Of Donation Is Produced To Ascertain Its Veracity (Ii) Deduction U/S 80G

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O. Ward 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 526/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.526/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd........….……………………....................……….……Appellant 12, Waterloo Street, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aadcv1161H] Vs. A.O, Ward-1(3), Kolkata……..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narayan Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 09, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 21, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06.03.2018 Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.03.2014 Passed By Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata. 2. The Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 968 Days. On Going Through The Condonation Application In The Form Of Affidavit & After Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That This Delay Is Accountable For Two Reasons. Firstly, The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Is Dated 06.03.2018 & The Assessee Has Not Received The Order On Time. Secondly, The Period Of Delay Occurred On Account Of Lockdown In The State Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19. In View Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay & Also The Extension Of Limitation Period By Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 Of 2020 Dated 10.01.2022 By Which The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Has Been Directed To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Limitation & A Further Period Of 90 Days Has Been Granted For Providing The Limitation From 01.03.2022, We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Admit The Same For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President and Shri Manish Borad, Accountant

Prasad Sp Entertainment LLP, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 261/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Prasads Sp Entertainment Vs. Acit,Cc-1(2) Llp Aaykar Bhawan 8-2-293/82/Jiii/6 Basher Bagh Ramanaidu Studios Hyderabad Road No.79, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 033

For Appellant: Shri A.Srinivas,CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet

Balaraj Guttamidi, Manikonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 262/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Balaraj Guttamidi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), R/O. Rangareddy. Hyderabad. Pan : Btlpg4930J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar. Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54Section 54F

assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Hyderabad dt.06.02.2020 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2 2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : “1. The Order

M/S Kotalipara Development Society, Barasat vs. I.T.O.(Exemption), Ward-1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 164/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.164/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Kotalipara Development Society....................................................…… …. Appellant Pioneer Para, Noapara, P.O. Barasat, North 24 Parganas, W.B. 700124. [Pan:Aaaak3272B] Vs. Ito(Exemption), Ward-1(4), Kolkata........................................................….. Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 21, 2022 आदेश / Order

Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘एसएमसी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA डॉ"टर

Kolla Gowri, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

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

ITA 1039/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Kolla Gowri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, R/O.Chennai. Chittoor. Pan : Aoepg6939E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.A. Sumitra Nandan, Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Sumitra NandanFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50DSection 53A

appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tirupati dt.25.04.2019 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). “1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeal

M. Vijayakumar(Rep by His Wife S. Yasodha), Erode vs. ITO, Intnl Taxaton Ward, Coimbatore

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

ITA 689/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 689/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri M. Vijayakumar, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By His Wife Smt. S.Yasodha, Vs. International Taxation 26, Kuttakkattuvalasu, Elumathur, Ward, Erode – 638 104. Coimbatore. Pan : Ajbpv 0551B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai In Ita No.101/Cit(A)-16/2019-20 Dated 13.07.2022. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Vide Order Dated 25.12.2019. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Is As Regard To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.8 Lakhs As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

M/S.Standard Fireworks P Ltd, Sivakasi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeal stand allowed

ITA 279/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthilkumaran (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी