← 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)

Mr. B.Nagendra, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1946/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

authorities below are bad in law for want of requisite jurisdiction. 9. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153/ of the Act on the ground that: - i. The search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions ... purely on the suspicion and therefore, the action u/s. 132 of the Act is bad in law and consequent assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is null and void-ab-initio on the parity of the ratio of the decision

Mr. B.Nagendra, Belgium vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1945/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

authorities below are bad in law for want of requisite jurisdiction. 9. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153/ of the Act on the ground that: - i. The search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions ... purely on the suspicion and therefore, the action u/s. 132 of the Act is bad in law and consequent assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is null and void-ab-initio on the parity of the ratio of the decision

Printrade Issues India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 7 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1770/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Printrade Issues India Private The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, 7(3)(2) Gala No.17, Pragati Indus Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Estate, 316, Nm Joshi Marg, Mumbai-400 004 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccp1550F Appellant By : Shri Mohan Makjija, Ar Respondent By : Shri V Tripathi, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. This Appeal Is Field By Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai Dated 17Th March, 2020, Wherein The Addition Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Of ₹14,15,549/- Was Upheld. This Is Only The Grievance In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Makjija, ARFor Respondent: Shri V Tripathi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

materials and other printing jobs. It filed its return of income on 31.08.2009 declaring income of ₹6,37,91,970/- . The assessment under section 143(3) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act’) was passed on 7th December 2011 determining the total income of the assessee ... before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the learned Assessing Officer made the addition of 100% of the purchases and passed an assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 19th March 2015 at 6,52,77,600/-. 05. The above addition was contested before

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC -6 (3), Mumbai vs. Advent Developer Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3066/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3066/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Advent Developers Jt. Cit (Osd), Cc-6(3) R. No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Cts-12A/28A, 12A/29 Tp Air India Bldg, Nariman बिधम/ 33, Advent Atria, Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad(W), Mumbai-400 064 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aafca3158H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Vishwas Mehendale, Ld. Ar By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Ms. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.02.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenges The Impugned Order Dated 23.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 54, Mumbai In Short Referred As „Ld. Cit(A)‟ In 2

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR by
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM, & Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM (Virtual Court

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sofdel Systems P..Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA no

ITA 3618/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 250Section 92C

Revenue and cross objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 are against the final assessment order dated 29.01.2016, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of Act by the Assessing Officer (“the AO”). 2. Since the appeals and the cross objection pertain ... 3,17,55,936 on a transaction value of Rs. 4,81,49,214. The AO passed the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(1) of the Act, inter–alia, on the basis of adjustment proposed by the TPO. 4.4 In appeal

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

return of income filed by the assessee was selected for the scrutiny assessment. The scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed on 18/12/2009 after making various additions and disallowances. In the said assessment order income under the regular provisions

Mrs. Saira Banu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on additional grounds raised

ITA 691/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08 Mrs. Saira Banu, The Deputy # N-42, 9Th “B” Main, Commissioner Of Lic Quarters, Income Tax, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Circle – 7 [2], Bangalore – 560 075. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aebpb3345J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 31.08.2020 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2007-08 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Is Bad In Law In So Far As The Issues For Which The A.O. Initiated & Completed The Assessment Proceedings On The Basis Of The Details & Information Collected By Him Were Not Put To The Appellant & Thus, The Order Of Assessment Passed Is In Gross Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice & Thus, The Same Deserves To Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 251

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

M/S. Skf Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1773/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee. The assessee submitted various details as called for by the AO from time-to-time. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) vide order dated 23/12/2016 making various additions and assessing the loss of the assessee at Rs.60,10,55,965. In the appeal before the first

Patel & Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 832/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Patel & Associates, Dcit Cc-7(3), Office No. 1, 2Nd Floor, Patel Vs. Aayakarbhavan, Bhuvan, 29 Vijay Wad, Dr Mumbai-400020. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chirasazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aanfm 8145 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. AparnaSivakumar, AR
Section 139(9)Section 143(3)

return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment, which has been completed on 10/12/2019 under section 143(3) of the Act and total income has been assessed at ₹68,98,450/-. In said order, the AO rejected the claim of treating interest receipt as part

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

assessment year 2013-14 is reopened under section 147 of the Act, and assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 are regular assessments under section 143(3). On legal grounds raised for assessment year 2013-14, the Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee for the above assessment year filed its return ... which the assessment has been reopened does not contain the name of assessee and hence irrelevant. 5.2. We note that no assessment under section 143(3) was passed in the case of assessee for assessment year 2013-14. Hence the argument of the Ld.AR that the issue of notice under

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

assessment year 2013-14 is reopened under section 147 of the Act, and assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 are regular assessments under section 143(3). On legal grounds raised for assessment year 2013-14, the Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee for the above assessment year filed its return ... which the assessment has been reopened does not contain the name of assessee and hence irrelevant. 5.2. We note that no assessment under section 143(3) was passed in the case of assessee for assessment year 2013-14. Hence the argument of the Ld.AR that the issue of notice under

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

assessment year 2013-14 is reopened under section 147 of the Act, and assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 are regular assessments under section 143(3). On legal grounds raised for assessment year 2013-14, the Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee for the above assessment year filed its return ... which the assessment has been reopened does not contain the name of assessee and hence irrelevant. 5.2. We note that no assessment under section 143(3) was passed in the case of assessee for assessment year 2013-14. Hence the argument of the Ld.AR that the issue of notice under

M/S. Corporation Bank, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 1109/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S & Ita No.1680/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.A &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

completed on 12- 12-2017 by The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle - 2(1) (AO), Mangalore. In the assessment made under section 143(3), the learned AO made several additions and disallowances and determined the income under regular provisions at Rs. 3208,32,31,415/-. In the assessment

M/S. Coimbatore Cable Network Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner Oof Income Tax, (Appeals)-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 1618/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

ITA No.1618/Bang/2017 M/s. Coimbatore Cable Network Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Rashmi Subhash Jha, Mumbai vs. ITO-29(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 782/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80Section 90Section 90ASection 91

empowered to reject/modify the claim made in the return by resorting to the provisions of section 143(2) thereby leading to section 143(3) assessment. 8. The established legal view is that the Assessing Officer is not justified in insisting that the supporting evidence in respect of the assessee

Mrs. Kranti Bagad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent.Cir 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyai.T.A. No. 459/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Vs. Dcit,Cc-1(1) Kranti Bagad 1302, Siddhivinayak Chs Ltd. 9Th Floor, Prathishta Plot No.3, Sector 14 Bhawan, Old.Cgo Annexe Khanda Colony M.K.Road-400 020 New Panvel-410 206 Pan : Ahppb2241N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 459/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year

DCIT - 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Toto India Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 6226/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (CIT)
Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

aforesaid international transactions entered into by the assessee. The AO passed the assessment order dated 26.05.2016 under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(3) of the Act, inter–alia, on the basis of adjustment proposed by the TPO. 8. In appeal, the CIT(A) taking note of the manufacturing license

Peri (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds no

ITA 4607/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Tejender Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 254(1)Section 92C

fees’ to be NIL and made an adjustment of Rs. 7,23,100. 7. The AO passed the assessment order dated 06.01.2017 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) of the Act, inter-alia, on the basis of adjustment proposed by the TPO. 8. In appeal, the Commissioner

Ids Software Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 537/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.537/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Ids Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Vs. Shabari Complex, Ground Floor, Fo Cabin, No.8, Circle – 3(1)(1), Field Marshal Cariappa Road, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 025. Pan : Aabci 243O G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

appeal by the assessee against the final Order of Assessment dated 29.09.2021 passed by the DCIT, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bengaluru, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and r.w.s.254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), in relation to Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though

Hasham Traders, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1/Bang/2021 Assessment Year:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Manjunath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

IT(TP)A No.1/Bang/2021 Hasham Traders, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN