← 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)

Kalpanadevi, Pondicherry vs. ADIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 664/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.664/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalpanadevi, The Assistant Director Of 34, Koil Mania Street, Vs. Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Pondicherry 605 009. Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Csjpk5198N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 10.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.14,89,000/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 43B

that the issues involved in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. However, in this case, the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was not carried out and therefore, the Assessing Officer has no occasion to examine as to whether the assessee has remitted

M/S Melongos India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 651/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.650 & 651/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Melongos India P. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 16, Mullai Street, Lenin Nagar, Corporate Ward 4(1), Ambattur, Chennai 600 053. Chennai [Pan:Aabcm8934H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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) 8, Chennai, Both Dated 09.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013- 14 & 2015-16. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delay By 818 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Within The Lockdown Extended Period Allowed By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Due

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was completed on 26.12.2018 by assessing income of the assessee

M/S Melongos India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 650/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.650 & 651/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Melongos India P. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 16, Mullai Street, Lenin Nagar, Corporate Ward 4(1), Ambattur, Chennai 600 053. Chennai [Pan:Aabcm8934H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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) 8, Chennai, Both Dated 09.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013- 14 & 2015-16. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delay By 818 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Within The Lockdown Extended Period Allowed By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Due

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was completed on 26.12.2018 by assessing income of the assessee

M/S Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 4 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 649/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.649/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Represented By Its Managing Income Tax, Director, No. 2/87, Raghaava Nagar, Corporate Circle 4(1), 7Th Street, Moovarasampet, Chennai Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan:Aagcm1970L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. James Victor Rajkumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 25.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Eight Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri P. James Victor RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

that the issues involved in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. However, in this case, the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was not carried out and therefore, the Assessing Officer has no occasion to examine as to whether the assessee has remitted

Jignesh Jaswantrai Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax-27(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 536/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the Assessment Order, dated 02.03.2015 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). ITA. No. 536/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 2. The Appellant has raised the following ... income of INR 1,00,71,580/-. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act at total income of INR 1,57,23,360/- after making disallowance of INR 51,30,398/- under Section 14A read

West Gujarat Exdpress Way Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 483/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Govindekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

rate of 15% treating the ‘toll road’ as plant and machinery. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) vide order dated 23/03/2015, passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the ownership of the road has always been vested with Government ... toll revenues earned and offered the same to tax under the head ‘business income’. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings, treated the interest income as ‘income from other sources’, while computing the total income of the assessee

M/S. Sunshine Communication P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 346/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Sunshine Vs. Deputy Commissioner Communication Pvt. Of Income Tax Ltd.1St Floor, Capri, Central Circle 5(4), Anant Kanekar Marg, Mumbai-400020. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Pan No.Aadcs4276L Appellant Respondent

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

also reduced the disallowance from working progress and assessed the total loss of Rs.2,96,73,572/-and passed the order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2018. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assesssee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). Whereas, CIT(A) considered

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. West Gujarat Express Way Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2496/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Govindekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

rate of 15% treating the ‘toll road’ as plant and machinery. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) vide order dated 23/03/2015, passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the ownership of the road has always been vested with Government ... toll revenues earned and offered the same to tax under the head ‘business income’. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings, treated the interest income as ‘income from other sources’, while computing the total income of the assessee

DCIT- 26(1), Mumbai vs. Hindusta Mortar Lining LLP, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2458/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit-26(1), Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Hindusta Mortar Lining Llp Gala No.35, Shree Jee Ind. Estate, Subhash Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060. Pan: Aaffh4358D ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 02.03.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 268ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Laxmina Ventures, Vashi vs. Pr. CIT -28, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1254/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalelaxmina Ventures, Vs. Principal Commissioner 103, Vardhmanmarket, Of Income Tax,3 Rd Floor, Opp: Andhra Bank I T Department, Vashi Sector-17,Vashi, Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703 Commercial Complex, Navimumbai-400703 Pan No.Aaefl3415G Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Pr.CIT has erred in treating the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial interest of the Revenue overlooking the facts that the case was selected for limited scrutiny

Shri. Ashok Kumar V Sanghi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7952/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

reply to the information/details sought. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer („AO‟) vide order dated 10/02/2016, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act assessed the total income at Rs. 44,50,240, after making certain additions to the income returned ... that cash corpus was created to meet any emergency medical treatment of his wife and his brother. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee transferred funds to/from these

Smt/ Pawan M Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 7852/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavya SundeshaFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Nair,Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 54Section 54F

Assessing Officer") in determining the Total Income of the appellant at Rs. 18,42.982/- while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as against returned income of Rs.1,53,634/–. Long Term Capital Gains on sale of flat- Rs.1 ... also confirms the amount of Rs. 14,50,000 received by him. The Assessing Officer („AO‟) vide order dated 30/11/2016 passed under section 143 (3) of the Act, in the case of assessee, treated the balance amount of Rs. 85,70,000 (Rs. 1,20,00,000 minus

Barclays Capital Mauritius Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, It 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7209/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.7209/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2016-17) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Room No.427, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate With Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Shri Harshit Sangoi. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate with Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala &For Respondent: S/Shri Milind S. Chavan & Nihar Samal
Section 143(3)

pronouncement : 26/09/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 24/09/2019 passed under section 143(3) r/w/s/ 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’] for the assessment year 2016-17. 2 2. Shri Nishant Thakkar

Joseph Mudaliar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, -CC 4 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Sharma a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 250

chargeable to tax for the year under consideration. Joseph Mudaliar ITA No.7199/Mum./2019 The Assessing Officer („AO‟) vide order dated 25/08/2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, after noting that no submission was filed by the assessee in response to the various queries till the date of passing ... provide the details of additional income declared during the course of proceedings before Income Tax Settlement Commission. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, in absence of any documentary evidence to support the claim that the disclosure made in the preceding years is on account

M/S J Kantilal & Co, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-18 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6723/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56

submitted that the Bank F.D. is given as security to Bank for business purpose. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 29/01/2016, passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and treated the interest income earned from Bank F.D. as “Income From ... assessment year 2012–13 and 2014–15, however, no addition in this regard was made by the Assessing Officer while passing order under section 143(3) of the Act. In the present case, it has not been disputed by the Revenue that overdraft facility availed by the assessee

DCIT - CC- 4(2) - Central RG. 4, Mumbai vs. Suman Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3795/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Vs Shri Ginny Prateek Gupta 6Th Floor, Apeejay House Tax, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, Air India 130, Mumbai Samachar Marg Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Fort, Mumbai-400 023 400 021 Afxpk2448E Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Vs Smt. Suman Gupta 6Th Floor, Apeejay House Tax, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, Air India 130, Mumbai Samachar Marg Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Fort, Mumbai-400 023 400 021 Afxpk2448E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

return of income on 30/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,15,098/-. Pursuant to a search and seizure action, assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 153A was passed determining the total income of the assessee to be at Rs.1,12,17,450/-. The assessee was in appeal ... ferrous and non ferrous material. The assessee filed its return of income on 30/07/2011. Pursuant to a search action, the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 31/10/2016 was passed determining the total income at Rs.5,70,81,480/-. The Assessing Officer computed proportionate interest

DCIT -CC - 4(2) - Central RG- 4, Mumbai vs. Ginni Prateek Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3791/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Vs Shri Ginny Prateek Gupta 6Th Floor, Apeejay House Tax, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, Air India 130, Mumbai Samachar Marg Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Fort, Mumbai-400 023 400 021 Afxpk2448E Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Vs Smt. Suman Gupta 6Th Floor, Apeejay House Tax, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, Air India 130, Mumbai Samachar Marg Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Fort, Mumbai-400 023 400 021 Afxpk2448E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

return of income on 30/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,15,098/-. Pursuant to a search and seizure action, assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 153A was passed determining the total income of the assessee to be at Rs.1,12,17,450/-. The assessee was in appeal ... ferrous and non ferrous material. The assessee filed its return of income on 30/07/2011. Pursuant to a search action, the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 31/10/2016 was passed determining the total income at Rs.5,70,81,480/-. The Assessing Officer computed proportionate interest

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Tracom Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4754/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish JangidFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

assessee for impugned assessment year was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS by ITO -11(2), Kolkata and notice issued under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘ the Act’ ] dated 02/08/2012 was served on the then assessee. During the pendancy assessment proceedings, in pursuance

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Green Infra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7529/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 250Section 260ASection 56(1)Section 61Section 78(2)

group has also shown substantial grown in a subsequent year in a consolidated form. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 09/03/2015, passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee company has shown consistent losses

Asit C. Mehta Investment Intermediates Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2012-13 (ITA No

ITA 3550/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 37

whereby the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant/Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 25.02.2015 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). 3. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 3550/Mum/2016 ... declaring loss of INR.10,61,00,147/-. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on the Appellant, vide order dated 25.02.2015, at total income of INR 85,95,220/- after making following additions/disallowances: - Disallowance