“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)

Luxora Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1292/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of, Inter Alia, The Construction & Development Of Integrated Townships. The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 12Th December 2011 At A Total Income Of Rs 42,18,260. However, As A Result Of Search Operations Having Been Carried Out By The Income Tax Department On The Assessee & Its Associated Persons & Group Enterprises, The Assessee Was Called Upon To File A Fresh Return Under Section 153A, Which Was

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged the correctness of the order dated 31st December 2018, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The short point, in our humble understanding, that we need ... absence of any incriminating material found during the course of the search operations, any addition can be made in an assessment under section 143(3) read with Section 153A. Ground number 3 specifically raises this issue. 3. The issue in appeal lies in a narrow compass of material facts

Ruchi Acroni Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 824/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.824 /Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ruchi Acroni Industries Vs. Dcit,Cc-7(2) Ltd., 611, Tulsiani Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Chambers, Nariman Aaykar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai – 21 Mumbai 20 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr6534R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bhupendra Shah Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

ITA No.824/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 1 Ruchi Acroni Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-7(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Inventurus Knowledge Soltions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 2403/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabci 5573 J Co No. 249/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 2403/Mum/2018 For A.Y. 2011–12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Sc Tiwari/ Ms Umamagswari M, Ars Revenue By : Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri SC Tiwari/For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92C

31st January, 2018. By this order the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 5th May, 2015 was partly allowed. 02. The Assessee ... 92CA (3) was passed by DCIT (TP) 1(1)(1), Mumbai dated 30th January, 2015. 08. Based on this, the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 5thMay 2015 determined total income of the assessee at a loss of ₹5,13,63,202/- against

ACIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rex Tone Industrties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 741/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-13(3)(1) Vs. M/S Rex-Tone Industries Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, Ltd., 501, Advent Atria, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Chincholi Bunder Road, Road, Mumbai – 20 Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr1956K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 35

ITA No.741/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 1 ACIT-13(3)(1) Vs. M/s Rex-tone Industries Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

process of law, the Ld. Assessing Officer Assessing Officer (AO) completed the completed the reassessment on 30/03/2016 under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, wherein 30/03/2016 under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the 30/03/2016 under section 147 read with section 143(3

Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1472/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

assessee and submissions were filed. The AO, upon scrutiny of details submitted by the assessee, vide order dated 28/12/2007 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, computed the total loss at Rs. 65,28,333, after making certain disallowances. 5. Subsequently, vide notice dated 29/03/2012 issued under section ... notice, representation was made on behalf of the assessee and details as sought were filed. The AO vide order dated 30/03/2013 passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 8,93,18,360 after making various disallowances

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6671/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

Abbasbhai A. Upletawala, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 5332/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 45

challenged the correctness of the order dated 3rd September 2015, passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2006- 07. 2. The assessee before us is an individual

Indauto Filters, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K G Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 32

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

Kusuma Cashews, Karkala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 511/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax (Central), Bengaluru, is not justified in law in setting aside the assessment order passed under Section 143(3), dated 11.12.2019 as it is found that the order is erroneous in law or is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to the extent ... fact that, the said excess stock has already been added to the income as unexplained investment, in the original assessment order passed under section 143(3), dated 11.12.2019 and hence, question of erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, does not arise

Dover India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.460/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Dover India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Bagmane Laurel, 1St Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Bengaluru. C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaaci 3920 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Providing Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Medreich Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 451/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 451/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Medreich Ltd., No. 12/8, Medreich The Assistant House, Commissioner Of Saraswati Ammal Income Tax, Street, Central Circle – Maruti Seva Nagar, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 033. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm1458Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Acit, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore Dated 26/04/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1.1 The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore (`A0') Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act) In The Manner Passed

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

General Ground 1.1 The learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore (`A0') erred in passing the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act) in the manner passed Page 2 of 13 IT(TP)A No. 451/Bang/2022

Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 350/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

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

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

Padmavathy, A.M. This appeal is against the final assessment order passed by National e-assessment centre dated 22.04.2021 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the assessment year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The assessee raised the following concise grounds

Pgs Premiere Conferencing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bangalore

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

ITA 622/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Pri.CII' has erred in regarding the order dated 25 October 2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 2 M/s.PGS Premiere Conferencing Pvt.Ltd. 3. That, on the facts ... CBDT are to the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to TPO clearly indicates that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act is without proper inquiry and investigation particularly on the issue of computation of ‘ALP’ in relation to international transactions

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2577/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

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

P.S.Jayaraman, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 23(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2983/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Meenakshi Sundaram (Advocate )-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

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

Advance Investment Meechanics India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-WD 12(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 798/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14A

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the Assessment Order, dated 26.10.2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative

DCIT Central Cir (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Raksha Bullion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Assessee C.O. No. 78/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Assessee Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Vimal Punmiya, Ca Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as [‘CIT(A)’] dated 07.01.2022 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as [‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following ... 78/Mum/2022 M/s Raksha Bullion trading and during the year under consideration has derived its income from Business. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2018 by determining total income at Rs. 19,56,17,680/-. 5. During the assessment proceedings, the AO made additions

Bugget Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1775/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R

Rs.2,62,21,909/- qua the purchases made from M/s. Kangan, M/s. Dharam and M/s. Maniprabha and thereby made additions under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has restricted