← 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)

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Int Tax) -1(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1690/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dilshad Ahmed Rangrej, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1687/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dilshad Ahmed Rangrej Cit, E2 Building No. 11, Sai Mahal Chs Ltd, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Sector 48, Seawood, Nerul, Navi Vs. Delhi Mumbai-400 706

For Appellant: Sh. Shahank MehtaFor Respondent: Sh. Ujjawal Chavan,SR AR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54Section 56

13/03/2022 wherein assessee preferred an appeal against Assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer 28(1) (3) Mumbai [the ld AO] under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act [The Act] dated 20/12/2016 was dismissed. The assessee has preferred appeals on following grounds : “Being aggrieved by the order

Vulvan Traders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tex, Mumbai-5, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1318/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Principle Commissioner Of Vulvan Traders Private Income Tax, Limited 515, 5Th Floor, 805A, Corporate Avenue, Aaykar Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Vs. Goregaon (East) Mk Road, Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv1603K Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Income Tax, Mumbai, 5 (the learned PCIT) for A.Y. 2012-13, wherein it has been held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 26th December, 2019 by the learned Assessing Officer at total income ... return was revised on 11October 2012 at ₹1,92,488/-. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 31st March, 2015 at a total income of ₹1,22,48,000/-. Subsequently, the matter travelled

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-1 (1), Mumbai-400026 vs. M/S Guru Nanak Vidyak Society, Mumbai-400037

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1265/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit (Exemption)-1(1), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill Dr. Gd Deshmukh Marg, (Padder Road), Mumbai- 400026. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Guru Nanak Vidyak Society, Ground Floor, Guru Tesh Bahadur Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Sion Koliwada, Mumbai-400037. Pan: Aaatg2095D ..... Respondent Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Satyapal Kumar, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Priyank Ghia & Kanu Chokshi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 29.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Condonation For Return Of Income When Only

For Appellant: Sh. Priyank Ghia & Kanu Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 1(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result of above discussion keeping in view the provisions of statute and Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2016, we accept the arguments of assessee, and ground no

ITA 305/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalwest Cost Paper Mills Ltd., Shree Niwas House, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001. Pan: Aaact4179N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(3) (4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Alpesh Dharod & Sh. Tarun Ashok Chopda, Ars Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Satyapal Kumar- Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 244A(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 29.01.2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Alpesh Dharod &For Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar- Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 24ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

DCIT CC, -7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Glamour Health Care Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenueis dismissed

ITA 2252/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit, Cc-7(2), Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Glamour Health Care Pvt. Ltd. 4 Kiran Villa, 34, Ram Mandir Road, Danda, Khar (West), Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaacn2617F ..... Respondent Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 24.08.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

M/S. Firmenich Aromatics Production India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6116/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 94C

Assessment Year 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 26.03.2015, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 94CA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). ITA. No. 6116/Mum/2019 Assessment Year ... with the Associated Enterprises to be at arm's length. The assessment ITA. No. 6116/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 was thereafter completed under section 143(3) read with section 94CA(4) of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 26.03.2015. The Assessing Officer made following additions/disallowance (i) disallowed Software Charges

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Monsanto India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3490/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Darshan KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 28.03.2013, passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The grounds raised in the appeal are directed against the order

M/S. Mindtree Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 988/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it is prayed that the ITA No.988 & 1029/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 13 order passed under section 143 (3) r.w.s. 263 of IT Act be quashed and relief sought be granted.” 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.50

Kantharajapura Ramaiah Ananthababu, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 263

learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax is not justified in law and on facts to set aside the assessment order passed under section 143[3] of the Act dated 17/12/2019 and direct the assessing officer to modify the original assessment passed by the learned assessing officer, on the facts ... Principal Commissioner of Income tax is not justified in passing an order under section 263 of the Act, as the order passed under section 143[3] of the Act, was pursuant to proper enquiry conducted by the learned assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, all three appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 488/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudan, U.A., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

arising out of incriminating material found during the course of search, in as much as, the year for which the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act is sought to be revised is an unabated assessment year and consequently the order passed under section

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, all three appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 487/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudan, U.A., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

arising out of incriminating material found during the course of search, in as much as, the year for which the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act is sought to be revised is an unabated assessment year and consequently the order passed under section

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, all three appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 486/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudan, U.A., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

arising out of incriminating material found during the course of search, in as much as, the year for which the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act is sought to be revised is an unabated assessment year and consequently the order passed under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Mindtree Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1029/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it is prayed that the ITA No.988 & 1029/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 13 order passed under section 143 (3) r.w.s. 263 of IT Act be quashed and relief sought be granted.” 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.50

Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 224/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Microsemi India Private Limited (Now Merged With Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 211/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 316/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, C/O. Subash Agrawal & Vs Kolkata Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700069 [Pan : Aaacw2197D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16 /12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Though The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred, However, In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of 2021 In Smw(C) No. 3 Of 2020, The Period Of Filing Appeal During The Covid-19 Pandemic Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Counting The Limitation Period. In View Of This, The Appeal Is Treated As Filed Within The Limitation Period.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE

Hrishikesh Mega Townwhip (P) Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 47/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Hrishikesh Mega Township (P) Limited,.......Appellant Flat Ah-5- 8/15, Lake View Housing Complex, Near Anandamayee Ashram, B/1, Drainage Canel Road, Howrah-711102 [Pan: Aacch1729C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

filed its return of income on 28.10.2009 declaring total income of Rs.289/-. An assessment order was passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) on 31.12.2010 determining the total income at Rs.43,730/-. This order was set aside by the ld. Commissioner by exercising the powers under section

Rahee Jhajharia E to E (Jv), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-32, Kolkata

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

ITA 135/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 135/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Rahee Jhajharia E To E (Jv),..................Appellant “Kemwell Manor”, 5Th Floor, 10/D/2, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aabar5042H] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..Respondent Circle-32, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri K.K. Khemka, Advocate & Shri Anuj Musaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

3. That on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. A.O. erred in passing assessment order dated 27.09.2017 under section 143(3) read with section 92CA(3) and 144C(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961, as such the order so passed subsequent to limitation under section 144C

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Cabcon India (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals in I

ITA 1131/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

seeps aiciteher aiferaz0T WII 'w' Uls, BYctapIAl di IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA vd oft