“ Section 143(3) ”

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

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.

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court

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

3,235

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

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.

243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court

2,943

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.

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.

88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court

2,664

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

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.

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.

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.

149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court

2,379

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT

2,267

ITA 5547/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

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)

Smt. Chandadevi K Rathi, Thane vs. ITO Ward 18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Chandadevi K. Rathi, Ito Ward-18(1)(3), B/502, Kailash Mansarovar, Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Temba Road, Bhayandar (W), Vs. Earnest House, Thane-401 101. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aczpr 2750 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, DR

Section 143(3)Section 69

returned income to the returned income vide his order dated his order dated 14.12.2016 in terms of section 143(3) of the Income 14.12.2016 in terms of section 143(3) of the Income 14.12.2016 in terms of section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

Neeraj Nath, Mumbai vs. ITO 28 (2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground nos

ITA 4210/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsh. Neeraj Nath Plot No. 53, Sector-21, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400706 Pan: Aabpn6775A ...... Appellant Vs. The Ito-28(2)(3), Room No. 331, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Station Complex, Navi Mumbai-400703. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajesh Shah Respondent By : Sh. Indira Adakil, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Dated 13.05.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Grounds Of Appeal Tax Effect Relating To Each Ground Of Appeal (See Note Below) 1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In 3,16,406 Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 10,44,245 Though

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Indira Adakil, CIT-DR

ITA 3130/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

declaring total income of Rs. 5,78,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and scrutiny assessment was completed under section 143(3) dated 09.12.2011 assessing total income at Rs. 29,74,679/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... reflecting funds transfer to Mrs. Preeti Nath). 7. We have gone through the order of AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act, order of Ld. CIT(A) and assesee’s submissions before the authorities below. There is no challenge to the fact that assessee has taken personal

Interactive Avenues Pvt. Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us :-

Section 143(3)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s

M/S Wings Eco Homes (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-11(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2434/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Wings Eco Homes (P) Vs. Dy. Cit Ltd. Circle-11(3)(2), 110/114, Building No.4 M.K.Road, Mittal Industrial Estate Mumbai-400020. Marol Naka, Andheri (East) Mumabi-400059

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Happy Home Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5250/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush ChaturvediFor Respondent: Sh. Indira Adakil, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

M/S. Mobily Infotech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

General Ground 1.1 The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Range 3(1), Bangalore [ ‘AO’] erred in passing the order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] in the manner passed by him and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bangalore ... earlier years and that subsequent to demerger also, interest paid on said loan was allowed as deduction while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) for the AY 2015-16. Post demerger the leased asset and the loan are retained with the assessee as per the court order approved

Ntt Data Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 297/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

ITA 198/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

IT(TP)A No.297/Bang/2021 M/s. NTT Data Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B

Vena Energy Patan Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)

ITA 197/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

Vena Energy Mh Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)

ITA 196/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

Vena Energy Fatanpur Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)

ITA 195/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

Vena Energy Kn Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)

ITA 313/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

M/S. Hical Infra Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Range- 1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Anitas Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 618/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Anitas Exports Private Limited Vs Ito 9(1)(1) 203, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 340, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (W), Mumbai-400 053 Pan : Aafca5386H Appellant Respondent

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 271Section 80I

assessee:- GROUND NO.l The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the learned AO, Ward 9(1)(1), Mumbai, under section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act, even though it is capricious in nature and has been made ignoring the established and undisputed facts. The said ... after claiming deduction under section 80IC of Rs.11,76,35,730/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order under section 143(3) was passed on 28/03/2016. The assessment was subsequently reopened under section 148 of the Act on 30/03/205 following the survey conducted by the Investigation Wing under

S. Zaveri Pharmakem P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-08, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 952/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm S Zhaveri Pharmakem Private Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax–08, Limited Room No. 611, 6Th Floor, 109, Shiv Smruti Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Vs. 49 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aajcs 0402 N Assessee By : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Authorised Representative Revenue By : Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal Leava, Cit Departmental Representative Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, AuthorisedFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 07Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT) dated 22nd March, 2021 under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) holding that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 22nd December, 2018 by the Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 8(2)(2), Mumbai (learned Assessing Officer) accepting ... total income of ₹3,21,83,400/-. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 22nd December, 2018 at the returned income. 05. The learned PCIT examined records and find that assessee has incurred

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte.Ltd ., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT(International Tax)Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 742/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore. During The Relevant Previous Year, The Assessee Company Provided Bushing & Fabrication Services To Its

ITA 1706/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

will first take up ITA No. 2049/Mum/2016. 3. This appeal is directed against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12, served on the assessee on 1st February

Shri Ajay Virendra Arora, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Ajay Virender Arora V. Dcit – Central Circle – 6(4) S-14, 6Th Floor Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor Solitaire Corporate Park Air India Building, Nariman Guru Govindji Marg, Chakala Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Addpa6742R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Central Circle – 6(4) V. Shri Ajay Virender Arora Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor S-14, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Solitaire Corporate Park Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Guru Govindji Marg, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Addpa6742R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain & Shri Ravikanth Pathak Department By : Smt. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain &For Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 127(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

does not contain any details of incriminating material found during the search. In absence of such crucial details, whether the assessment made under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A is bad in law. As indicated earlier the notice issued u/s 153A does not contain any details of incriminating material

Dy CIT, Cir-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. S. Kumars Nationwide Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1365/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 250

dated 20/10/2008, it was provided that other perquisites will be reimbursed on actual basis. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 21/04/2014, passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act did not agree with the submissions made by the assessee and disallowed 50% of Rs. 19,61,728 paid ... exchange for day-to-day purpose, total expenses and overseas credit card expenses of corporate division. The Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act did not agree with the submissions made by the assessee and accordingly, disallowed 50% of the expenses incurred

Dy CIT, Cir-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. S. Kumars Nationwide Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1364/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 250

ITO 3(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Watermark Capital Ltd(Previously Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd), Mumbai

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

ITA 814/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadales Rifaur Ito – 3(3)(4) Vs. M/S Watermark Capital Room No 672, Aayakar Ltd., (Previously Bhavan,M.K.Road, Watermark Financial Mumbai-40020 Constructions Ltd.,) 415, Raheja Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw3474H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.Anbuselvam.Dr Respondent By : Shri Vimal Punmiya.Ar Date Of Hearing 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri S.Anbuselvam.DRFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya.AR

ITA 5731/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT (It) Circle-3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore. During The Relevant Previous Year, The Assessee Company Provided Bushing & Fabrication Services To Its