← 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)

Sh. Dhan Singh Meena, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Srishti Associates, Kota

13. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, present appeal filed by the department deserves to be dismissed

ITA 1189/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 250

total income of the assessee was computed as under:- Assessed income as per order u/s 153C read with Rs. 4,02,56,560/- section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2019. Demand raised as per original order Rs. 1,66,20,550/- Total

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

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

ITA 1823/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

assessee is not eligible for claim of benefit under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act. 5. In the assessment finalized vide order under Section 143(3) dated 18.12.2019, the Assessing Officer has determined total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,64,24,034/- after denying the benefit of exemption

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

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

ITA 1822/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

assessee is not eligible for claim of benefit under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act. 5. In the assessment finalized vide order under Section 143(3) dated 18.12.2019, the Assessing Officer has determined total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,64,24,034/- after denying the benefit of exemption

Shrivardhan Biotech Private Limited, Kondigre vs. Income Tax Office, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 2191/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

Rohini Maruti Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

return was filed on 31-1-2001 declaring loss of Rs. 26,54,554. This assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act on 25-11-2003 whereby the total income was determined at Rs. 2,22,688. In this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure ... inaccurate particulars of such income furnished. It was pointed out that the disallowance made by the Assessing Authority in the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act were solely on account of different views taken on the same set of facts and, therefore, they could, at the most

Tulsabai Vasant Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

return was filed on 31-1-2001 declaring loss of Rs. 26,54,554. This assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act on 25-11-2003 whereby the total income was determined at Rs. 2,22,688. In this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure ... inaccurate particulars of such income furnished. It was pointed out that the disallowance made by the Assessing Authority in the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act were solely on account of different views taken on the same set of facts and, therefore, they could, at the most

Amol Vasant Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

return was filed on 31-1-2001 declaring loss of Rs. 26,54,554. This assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act on 25-11-2003 whereby the total income was determined at Rs. 2,22,688. In this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure ... inaccurate particulars of such income furnished. It was pointed out that the disallowance made by the Assessing Authority in the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act were solely on account of different views taken on the same set of facts and, therefore, they could, at the most

DCIT-Circle 1(1), Pune, Swargate Pune vs. Ansec Human Resource Services Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1309/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80J

correctly claimed in accordance with the provisions of Section 80JJAA, and the details were filed within the prescribed timeline. The order under Section 143(3) was passed after verification of the facts and the eligibility of the assessee to claim the deduction under Section 80JJAA. At the time

R. M. Commercial Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier Known As Citrine Merchants Private Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2114/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 R. M Commercial Pvt. Ltd (Citrine Merchants Pvt. Ltd.).……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 113, Netaji Subhash Road, 2Nd Floor, Dalhousie, Kolkata - 1. [Pan: Aabcc3113A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.09.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company & Had Filed Its E-Return For Ay 2017-18 On 26-10-2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,68,77,750/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Assessment Under Cass & Notices Were Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act, Against Which The Assessee Filed All The Details Along With Books Of Accounts. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Of The Assessee U/S 143(3) Vide Order Dated 18-12-2019 On A Total Income Of Rs.2,79,27,779/- By Making An Addition Of Rs.10,50,029/- U/S 14A R.W.R 8D. R. M Commercial Pvt. Ltd 3. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Of The Assessing Officer.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Bentec India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle -1(1), Kolkata.…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Bentec India Ltd………………. ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Phase-Ii, Kasba Industrial Estates, Plot No.11, Kol-700107.. [Pan: Aabcb0647G] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manish Tiwari, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 186 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Kumarasamy Ramalingam, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 3240/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3240/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & S.A. No. 120Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 3240/Chny/2025] Kumarasamy Ramalingam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 133, Mullai Nagar, Old Bus Stand Ward 2(1), Road, Perundurai, Erode 638 052. Erode. [Pan: Ajnpr1672H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 143(3)

total income of the assessee and assessed the income of the assessee at ₹.42,10,300/- vide his order dated 04.12.2019 under section 143(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has correctly appreciated the facts, considered the submissions and made the addition strictly

Raja Satheeshkumar, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2942/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Before Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2942/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Raja Satheeshkumar, Income Tax Officer, H.No.2/167, Cecg Nagar, Alagapuram, Ward-1(6), Periyapudur, Salem, Salem. Tamil Nadu-636 016. [Pan: Auqps9210G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Bhupendran S, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246Section 246A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री जॉजज जॉजज के

Krishna Prabha Sundarapandy, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2304/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2304/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

Syed Nazeer Syed Fayaz, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

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

ITA 2189/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2189/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

K1434 Senjerimalaiyadipalayam Primary Agricultural Co Opcredit Society, Coimbatore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 4(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2179/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2179/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 K1434 Senjerimalaiyadipalayam Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co-Op. Credit Non Corporate Ward 4(1), Society, Malayadipalayam Post, Coimbatore. Sultanpet Via, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore 641 669. [Pan:Aabak0950D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Karunanandham, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 462 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Karunanandham, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

short]. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. After following due procedure, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2018 inter alia, making various additions. The ld. CIT(A), on merits, deleted the addition of ₹.25,89,477/- towards claim of deduction ... fresh consideration. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. On perusal of the appellate order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee against the hearing notices issued

M T Krishne Gowda, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hassan

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

ITA 832/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. M. T. Krishne Gowda, Vs. Ito, Lakshmi Stone Crushing Industries, Ward – 1& Tps, Muduganur Arkalgud, Hassan. Hassan – 573 201, Karnataka. Pan : Arupk 5347 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R Uppin, Ar Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh R Uppin, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

Bella Vista Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6594/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Bella Vista Co-Operative Income Tax Officer, Housing Society Limited, Ward-3(1), 7Th Floor, Bella Vista, Vs. Room No. 3, 6Th Floor, 20A Oswal Park, B Wing, Pokharan Road-2, Ashar It Park, Road No.16Z, Thane, Wagle Industrial Estate, Maharashtra–400601. Thane (West), [Pan: Aadab2432M] Maharashtra-400604. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ritesh Shiyal For Revenue : Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Dated 26-09-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. The Limited Issue For Consideration In The Present Matter Relates To Claim Of Exemption U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act By The Assessee Co-Operative Society In Respect Of Interest Income Earned On Deposits Placed With Co-Operative Banks.

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh ShiyalFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL

Msl Driveline Systems Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6267/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145ASection 154Section 234ASection 270A

order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi, arising out of the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. The principal grievance of the assessee is directed against ... under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of ₹26,21,07,940/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition on account of MODVAT credit forming part of inventory by applying section 145A

ACIT Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sip Infotech Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly it should be disallowed

ITA 5917/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavacit, Circle-3(2)(1), Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 37Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM

The Mysore Association Bombay, Matunga - Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai, Lal Baug, Parel

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

ITA 5860/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG (President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Kavan N. Limbasiya, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND