← 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)

S.F.Dyes /Firm, Mumbai vs. A.C.Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2023/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14 S.F. Dyes/Firm A.C. Circle 17(1), First Floor, Hague Building, 9 Sprott Bandra Kurla Complex Road ,Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aacfs 5153 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shiv Prakash, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)AND SHRI RAHUL

M/S. Md. Noorudin Zaiwala, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1708/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S M.D. Noorudin Zariwala The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Prop. Mohd Noorudin Mondal) (Appeals)-Nfac, F Sector H-2 Line, Room No. 1, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Cheeta Camp, Trombay, Near Jama Masjid, Mumbai-400088. Pan No. Afepg 6380 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Navin B. Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

M/S. Shell Information Technology International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1245/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT–DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234B

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 30.04.2021, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. In this ... passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Range - 4(2)(1), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the learned AU'] under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in pursuance of the directions issued

M/S. Iqvia Ag (Previously Known As 'Ims Ag', Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1203/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 19.04.2021, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Act by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2016–17. IQVIA AG (Previously known

M/S. Subhkam Ventures (India), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5298/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh
Section 143(3)Section 14A

whereby the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 27.12.2017, passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as „the Act‟]. 2. The appellant has raised 5 grounds of appeal, all pertaining to disallowance made under ... Rules as „Nil‟. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept the justification/computation offered by the Appellant and vide order dated 27.12.2017, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, made a disallowance to INR 1,01,79,883/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules

Sunil Khanna, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 3415/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 14Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250

After considering the submissions made by the assessee and the facts available on record, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30/12/2013 passed under section 143 (3) of the Act held that the assessee has neither produced the 13 parties nor furnished any documentary evidences to establish the genuineness ... section 142 (1) by the Assessing Officer, which were duly replied by the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 05/12/2016 passed under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the Act disallowed an amount of Rs. 4,43,63,899 under section 69C of the Act in respect

Ashwin K. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2060/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(3)Section 50C

Year 2014-15, whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 19.12.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟]. 2. Appellant/Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Aneeka Universal Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-9, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7115/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 263Section 57

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟] setting aside the Assessment Order, dated 29.03.2016, passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation vide order dated 29.11.2019, whereby the application filed by the Appellant ... share application money received against un-allotted shares (referred to paragraph 1 of the Assessment Order, dated 31.03.2013). 6. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed vide order dated 29.03.2016. The Assessing Officer accepted the returned income of the Assessee and concluded as in the following

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

Baskaran (AM) :- These are cross appeals directed against the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2009-10 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the I.T. Act in pursuance of direction given by learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Grounds of appeal urged

Dy CIT (It)3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kingfisher Capital Clo Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 465/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 271(1)(c)

necessary.?" 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : on the basis of assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 13.05.2015 revising the total income to Rs.1

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7770/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Macleods Pharmaceuticals Central Circle-2(4), Limited, Room No. 802, Old Cgo Building, 8Th Vs. 304, Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Floor, M.K. Road, Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaacm 4100 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Macleods Pharmaceuticals Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax Central Circle-2(4), 304, Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Vs. Room No. 802, Old Cgo Building, 8Th Road, Andheri (West) Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400059. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacm 4100 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ashok Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Dy CIT CC 2 (4), Mumbai vs. M/S Maccleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7612/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Macleods Pharmaceuticals Central Circle-2(4), Limited, Room No. 802, Old Cgo Building, 8Th Vs. 304, Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Floor, M.K. Road, Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaacm 4100 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Macleods Pharmaceuticals Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax Central Circle-2(4), 304, Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Vs. Room No. 802, Old Cgo Building, 8Th Road, Andheri (West) Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400059. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacm 4100 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ashok Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Achal Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

ACIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3978/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(1), D-31, Star Apartment, S.V. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Borivali (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Tax-12(2)(1), 31, Star Apartment, S.V. Road, Borivali Room No. 128E, 1St Floor, Vs. West, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

declaring loss of ₹1,04,34,582/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on 23/12/2011 at assessed loss of ₹34,584/-. Subsequent to the completion ... reopening the assessment even though more than 4 years had passed from the end of the relevant assessment year and an order under section 143(3) of the Act had been passed. Therefore, grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2 are dismissed”. 6. We find that, the information was received from

Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2570/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Fame Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(1), D-31, Star Apartment, S.V. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Borivali (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Fame Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Tax-12(2)(1), 31, Star Apartment, S.V. Road, Borivali Room No. 128E, 1St Floor, Vs. West, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 9948 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

declaring loss of ₹1,04,34,582/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on 23/12/2011 at assessed loss of ₹34,584/-. Subsequent to the completion ... reopening the assessment even though more than 4 years had passed from the end of the relevant assessment year and an order under section 143(3) of the Act had been passed. Therefore, grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2 are dismissed”. 6. We find that, the information was received from

Flair Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground of appeal No

ITA 1334/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Flair Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-12(2)(2), 4Th Floor, Chawda Commercial Mumbai-400020. Centre, Chincholi Bunder Road, Vs. Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aabcf 1094 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 234BSection 68

Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In the reassessment proceeding completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 30/03/2015, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹20,00,00,000/-in terms of section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hitech Plast Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7342/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s

Hitech Corportion Limited (Formerly Known As Hitech Plast Ltd), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6770/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Chaitanya Properties Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 418/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1)(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Daffy Cosmetics Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 708/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

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

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

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

ITA 626/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM and Ms.Padmavathy S, AM