“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. Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. The Dy CIT 1(1)

ITA 1039/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 1999-2000

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

passed on 27.09.2004 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000, which in turn arose from the Assessment Order, dated 18.03.2002, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘]. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 2. Ground

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 40A(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

M/S Arena Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 862/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

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

Vodafone Idea Ltd (Erstwhile Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd), Mumbai vs. PCIT-Circle 5, Mumbai

ITA 662/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blevodafone Idea Limited V. Pcit – Circle 5 {Erstwhile Known As Aditya Birla Telecom Limited} Room No. 515, 5Thfloor Birla Centurion, 10Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. 794, B Wing Mumbai - 400020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400030 Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri J. D. Mistry : Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Ninad Patade Department Represented By : Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263

December 2019 ("assessment order" or "impugned order) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(2), Mumbai ("learned AO") under section 143(3) of the Act A copy of the assessment order is enclosed as Annexure 2 As per the notice issued under section 263, your goodself ... order cannot be revised. He further submitted that the assessee is pressing collateral proceedings before us, he submitted that the proceedings completed under section 143(3) itself is bad and the same order cannot be subject matter of revision hence the revisional order passed

Hotel Deepak, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 3, Kalyan

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

ITA 1887/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Prakash Mario Pinto, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 1847/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Prakash Mario Pinto Cit(A), A-1002, Apurva, Chembur Naka, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Prakash M. PintoFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Prakash

Kundanmal Keshrimalji Dhakad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-18(2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee also paid the tax of Rs.27,78,000. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 08/12/2016, passed under section 143(3) of the Act treated the capital gain received on accommodation entry in respect of penny stock of Rs.90,95,589, as income from other

Dnyanraj Yashvant Nikam, Mumbai vs. Pr, CIT -17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1719/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1719/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dnyanraj Yashvant Nikam Pcit बिधम/ 110, 2Nd Floor, Mody Street, Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Vs. Jamathkhana Building Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai-400001. C-43 G-Block Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abmpn6980B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-17, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 09.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Progressive Currency Bazaar P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4403/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292

course of reassessment proceedings, details with respect to trading activity were called for. The Assessing Officer (‘AO‟) vide order dated 29/12/2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee has shown bogus ... submissions and perused the material available on record. It is the plea of the assessee that in the present case, the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is null and void as no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued

Sri K R Udaya Kumar, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 525/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234A

Appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies himself to be assessed to the income of Rs.26,36,252/-against the assessed income under section 143(3) of Rs. 7,54,71O/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 3. The learned CIT(A) was not justified ... under Section 263 of the Act. The CIT vide order under Section 263 of the Act dated 28.03.2013 set aside the order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2010 with direction to do the assessment de-novo after providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee

M/S Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, NFAC, Chennai

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

ITA 861/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 861/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Income Tax, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 028. Chennai. [Pan:Aaics7671L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 26.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 24.11.2015 Admitting Total Loss At ₹.123,55,22,939/-. Subsequently, The Return Was 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. After following due procedure, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144A r.w.s. 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] assessing total loss at ₹.119,65,13,457/- after making addition towards interest income

Mr.N. Venkatesh, Namakkal vs. ITO, Inttaxn Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 449/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.449/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri N. Venkatesh, Vs. The Income Tax, 5/14, Singilipatty, L. Kanavaipatty, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Namakkal 637 002, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Adupv3691F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai Dated 30.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 31.05.2017 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.1,95,490/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

considering the details furnished by the assessee against statutory notices and by following due procedure, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 04.12.2019 assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.13,65,990/- by making addition towards unexplained cash deposit

Natarajan Pillai Padmanabhan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 153/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 152 & 153/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 14, Jai Balaji Nagar, Corporate Ward 5(3), Thirumalai Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 078. [Pan:Albpp8266H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 06.12.2018 & Dated 13.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 153/Chny/2022 Is Delayed By 788 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Out Of Which 725 Days Are Coming Under Covid-19 Pandemic Period & 63 Days Delay

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

submitted that the 3 I.T.A. Nos.152 & 153/Chny/22 assessee has preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 11.12.2018, the assessee could not furnish the details before the Assessing Officer ... impression that there is already an appeal pending before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and submitted that the issues are different and therefore, the order passed

Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

R. Yuvaraj, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-22(5), Chennai

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

ITA 114/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 114/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri R. Yuvaraj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 1/227, Old No. 1/206, Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Bajanai Koil Street, Medavakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 100. [Pan:Ahbpy9547N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.S. Balaji, Advocate & Shri B. Sakthivel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Dated 05.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 639 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Delay Was Due To 2

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

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

assessment year 2011-12 on 12.01.2012 admitting income of ₹.2,58,233/-. After following due procedure, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] on 27.02.2014 assessing income from business at ₹.41,53,783 treating the cash deposits ... under section 142(1) of the Act and considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 05.12.2016 by assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹.1,22,82,577/- after making addition towards long

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 468/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan Acit बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpn-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-11-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 467/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

DCIT, Corporate Circle -1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Arun Excello Urban Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 835/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ,ी वी. दुगा2

M/S. Global Arkitekts Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle - 2 (2), Chennai

ITA 708/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1

Shri Panmull Ashok Kukar Dugar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc - 9 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 556/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.556/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr.Panmull Ashok Kumar Dugar, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.11, Clemens Road, Of Income Tax, Vepery, Chennai-7. Non-Corporate Circle-9(1) Chennai. [Pan: Aadpd 8081 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.D. Anand, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr.R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय