← 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)

Vishal Osatwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Vishal Osatwal………………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ground Floor, 34/1U, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kol – 700019. [Pan: Aanpo2583R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-29(1), Kolkata………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.17,62,746/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Filed Revised Computation Of Income Offering Additional Income Of Rs.74,62,846/- Being Ltcg Claimed As Exempt In The Original Return Of Income. The Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 20-10-2016 Determining The Assessee'S Total Income At Rs.92,97,450/- By Making Addition Of Rs.74,62,846/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Ltcg & Disallowance Of Legal Expenses Of Rs. 3,809/-. In Respect Of Both These Vishal Osatwal Additions, The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

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

Tamilnadu Co-Operative Union, Chennai vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 59/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble George George K & Hon’Ble Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.Reddy Prakash, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 10Section 143(3)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumalgounder, Namakkal

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2155/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2155/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 269SSection 271D

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

M/S. Bay Forge Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Co, Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2329/CHNY/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S.Quintiles Research India Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 946/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

Further, the Tribunal noticed the time limit as prescribed under Section 153(1) of the Act for passing an order under Section 143(3) of the Act and held that the order under Section 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2011-12 should have been passed

Quintiles Research (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1025/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Vivek Kamalkar Kadam, Virar West vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6162/MUM/2025[ 2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2016-17 Vivek Kamalkar Kadam Income Tax Officer, Namasthetubunglow No. 2, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Road, Padmavati Nagar Phase 4, Near Vs. 16Z, Wagale Industrial Road, Mamta Super Market, Bolinj, Thane – 400604, Maharashtra. Virar West, Vasai – Virar, Maharashtra – 401305. [Pan: Adqpk2053E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jitendra Singh For Revenue : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Delhi, Dated 30-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of 12,50,000/- U/S 69A Of The Act, Being Part Of Loan Repayment, Ignoring That The Appellant Had Discharged The Initial Burden By Providing Comprehensive Evidence Of The Source, Including Affidavit, Confirmation, Itr & Audited Accounts Of Shri Shaikh, Which Establish Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transaction.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and the total assessed income was determined at Rs.25,02,690/- under section 143(3) of the Act, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately. 6.2 Aggrieved by the said assessment order dated 28.12.2018, the appellant. preferred

Radheshyam Shyamlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-11(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6103/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13 Radheshyam Shyamlal Gupta, Income Tax Officer, 5Th Floor, Ward-11(2)(2), Anuradha Satyamurty Residency Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.16, N.S. Road No.11, M.K.Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400049. Pan : Aabpg4019L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jay Thakkar For Revenue : Shri Brajendra Kumar Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 04-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated, Facts Of The Case Are That Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Wherein The Ao Has Determined The Long Term Capital Gain At Rs. 37,21,230/-, Being The 50% Share Of The Assessee In Respect Of Transfer Of 2 Property, Namely, Flat No. 2A & 2B, Anuradha Satyamurty Residency, Plot No.16, 11Th Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai, Which The Assessee Has Sold Jointly With His Wife, Mrs. Shubhadra R. Gupta. The Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Sustained The Order Of The Ao & Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)

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

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5790/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr.DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Arvind Chhotalal Morzaria, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5176/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Rajesh Mohan Singh Hajari, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 3 of assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 5157/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Mohan Singh Hajari, Income Tax Officer, Type 4 B/293, Ward-16(3)(1), Dr. Bam Hosp., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Byculla, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aazph4367E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Bandi For Revenue : Shri Kavan N. Limbasiya, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 21-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao Of Reopening The Case Under Section 148 Of The It Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao, The Reassessment Order

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh BandiFor Respondent: Shri Kavan N. Limbasiya, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

Goldencross Pharma Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 7(1)(1) Current Jao- DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4765/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankargoldencross Pharma V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Tower A, 1St Floor, Peninsula Current Jao-Dcit, Central Business Park, Ganpatrao Circle 1(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mk Road, Current Jao-906, Mumbai – 400013, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Maharashtra Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcg0541J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Upl Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds

ITA 4437/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245Section 254(1)

Subsequently, the assessing officer reopened the case of assessee by issuing notice under section 153A dated 20.10.2020. The assessing officer completed assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C / 153A on 04.10.2021. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made addition on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Upl Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds

ITA 4436/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245Section 254(1)

Subsequently, the assessing officer reopened the case of assessee by issuing notice under section 153A dated 20.10.2020. The assessing officer completed assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C / 153A on 04.10.2021. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made addition on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Hubtown Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3038/MUM/2025[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

against the CSR expenses should not be disallowed. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, cannot be claimed

Hubtown Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

against the CSR expenses should not be disallowed. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, cannot be claimed

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Om Trilok Realty & Infrastructure, Mumbai

ITA 4048/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shree Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Deputy Commissioner M/S Om Trilok Realty & Of Income Tax, Cc-7(3), Infrastructures, Shop No. 6Th Room No. 655, 8, Botawala Building, V Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 82086, Raghavji Road, S M. K. Road, Mumbai- Gowalia Tank, 400020, Maharashtra Mumbai-400036 Pan No. Aabfo8779M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushabh Mehta : Shri R A Dhyani, Cit-Dr Respondent By : 17.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of : 10.12.2025 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: 17.09.2025
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHREE PAWAN SINGH, JM AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Deputy

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi vs. Rakesh Arora, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3610/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69A

ITA No.3610/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI

Aadya Overseas Private Limited vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3153/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 143(3)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Umar Daraj, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Meerut

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

ITA 3095/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Umar Daraj, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(4), 153/1, Hapur Road, Meerut. Umar Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ainpd8766H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 40A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘C’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH