← 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)

Vanishree Holabsu Shettar, Guledgudd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 270/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263

shall be attracted only when the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and since the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act was not erroneous, much less prejudicial, the invoking of section 263 was not warranted on the facts and circumstances ... prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is on this basis, the assessment order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act has been set aside with a direction to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. It will be therefore imperative to dwell upon

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 201/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)
Section 11Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 96

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

M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 183/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nitin G. Inamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S

M/S Gokula Education Foundation Medical, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax Range-17, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 946/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 728/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S

Navin Agrwal, Thane vs. Circle 35(2) /AO Nafc, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2412/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Navin Agarwal बिधम/ Circle-35(2)/Ao Nfac Villa No.18, Palava Golf Delhi-110001. Vs. Links, Kalyan Shil Road Dombivali (E), Thane- 421204. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aekpa7396F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Saboo Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 16.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.10,000/-. 3. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 17.03.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.98,76,030/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Cass & The Ao Issued Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. According To The Ao, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 29.11.2018 Was Issued & Duly

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh SabooFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

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

Island Star Mall Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2163/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Island Star Mall Developers Commissioner Of Income-Tax Private Limited (Appeals), Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Delhi Ground Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg, Circle 6(1)(2), 5 Th Floor, R. Vs. Shree Laxmi Woollen Mills No. 506, Aaykar Bhavan, Estate, Mumbai Mumbai-400 011 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aabci4988F Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 249(2)(c)Section 250

which was revised on 25 March 2016. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Island Star Mall Developers Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 14-15 (the Act) was passed on 16 November 2016 at the income

Prashant Vijay Kale, Thane vs. CPC, Income Tax Dept., Bengaluru

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

ITA 2100/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm National Faceless Appeal Prashant Vijay Kale Center 47-403, Swastik Residency, Centralized Processing Near Muchhala College, Vs. Gb Road Kavesar, Center, Income Tax Thane, Mumbai-400 615 Department, Bengaluru (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adapk8367M Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Adv Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Rajan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Rajan Samal, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 4(2)Section 6(1)Section 90

There is also change in Foreign salary Income. 06. The revised return of income was processed by Central Processing Centre, under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 18 March 2021. It denied the foreign tax credit as per Circular no. 35 of intimation under Section 143

Vinati Saraf Mutreja, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -26(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1363/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amrjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1363/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Vinati Saraf Mutreja बिधम/ Acit-26(3) 302, 3Rd Floor, Vinayak 501, 5Th Floor, Vs. Heights, Nargis Dutt Road, Pratyakshkar Building, Bandra (W), Mumbai- Bkc, Bandra (E), 400050. Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Artps7699M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Siddharth Kothari Revenue By: Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Dated 20.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,75,938/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which According To Assessee, Was Based On A Defective Notice & So It Was Bad In Law. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Is That The Assessee Had Paid Donation Of Rs.12,50,000/- To M/S. Human Genetics & Population (Hgp) U/S 35(1)(Ii) Of The Act & After Making Donation, The Assessee Claimed Weighted Deduction Of Rs.21,87,500/-. Later, The Ao Received Information From Ddit(Inv.), Unit Kolkata About Beneficiaries Of Bogus Donation To M/S. Hgp & As Per The Information, The Assessee

For Appellant: Siddharth KothariFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, AM

Promas Engineers Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 615/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 24

28/11/2014 and 30/09/2015, respectively. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order was passed under section 143(3) determining total income at Rs.73,17,490/- and Rs.93,16,910/-, respectively for the impugned years wherein the Assessing Officer made additions on various grounds. Aggrieved by the said

Promas Engineers Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 614/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 24

28/11/2014 and 30/09/2015, respectively. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order was passed under section 143(3) determining total income at Rs.73,17,490/- and Rs.93,16,910/-, respectively for the impugned years wherein the Assessing Officer made additions on various grounds. Aggrieved by the said

Ahcl Pel, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed while Ground No

ITA 2011/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 801BSection 80I

passed on 31.07.2020 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, which in turn arose from the Assessment Order, dated 25.03.2015, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟]. 2. The grounds raised in cross appeals are as under: Revenue‟s Appeal ... treating the differential price as the undisclosed income of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act at income of INR 16,06,16,890/-. 3.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the Assessee

Dy CIT, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ahcl Pel, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed while Ground No

ITA 1859/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 801BSection 80I

passed on 31.07.2020 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, which in turn arose from the Assessment Order, dated 25.03.2015, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟]. 2. The grounds raised in cross appeals are as under: Revenue‟s Appeal ... treating the differential price as the undisclosed income of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act at income of INR 16,06,16,890/-. 3.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the Assessee

ITO 10 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6239/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(4), Vs. M/S Memphis 2Nd Floor, Room No. Investment & Trading 213, Aayakar Bhavan Co. Ltd Churchgate, 146, Chinar Bldg, Mumbai-400020. Sher-E-Punjab Society, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6735B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Adv & Shri.Shailesh Gupta.Ar Revenue By : Shri.T. Shankar. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai. 1. 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deciding That The Assessee Had Discharged Its Onus Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transactions." 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Mis. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Wherein The Hon'Ble High Court Has Made Observation With Respect To Creditworthiness 3. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Or Add A New Ground Which May Be Necessary.

For Appellant: Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri.T. Shankar. CIT.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

M/S Kuldeep Glass and Aluminium, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in our considered opinion the order of the Ld

ITA 2171/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Riteshkumar Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Vijay Kumar Soni, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

alleged that assessee was also involved in taking accommodation entries from these hawala dealers. 5. Case of the assessee was assessed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 15.03.2014 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 98,66,490/- under section ... Based on this information again case was re-opened under section 148 of the Act and re-assessment was done under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 02.03.2016. AO made 100% addition under section 69C of the Act amounting to Rs. 1, 98, 64,387/-. 8. Being

Kuldeep Glass and Aluminium, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, in our considered opinion the order of the Ld

ITA 7139/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Riteshkumar Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Vijay Kumar Soni, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

alleged that assessee was also involved in taking accommodation entries from these hawala dealers. 5. Case of the assessee was assessed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 15.03.2014 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 98,66,490/- under section ... Based on this information again case was re-opened under section 148 of the Act and re-assessment was done under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 02.03.2016. AO made 100% addition under section 69C of the Act amounting to Rs. 1, 98, 64,387/-. 8. Being

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

received on 16 October 2017) in pursuance to the directions issued by Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") (dated 23 August 2017) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the following grounds: 1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment

Thyssenkrupp Industiral Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H. Jamshedji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 40

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 19/01/2016, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act‟) by the Assessing Officer, for the assessment year ... provisions by the assessee, based on internal documentation maintained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order dated 25/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act treated the liability for the cost overrun as an unascertained liability and accordingly, disallowed the provision

Mahesh K. Faria, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

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

ITA 3806/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR) & Ms
Section 124(3)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144ASection 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM