“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)

Honnali Urban Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Honnali vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalkeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society, Kodagu vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru -3, Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1073/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

Sree Maruthi Co-Operative Housing Society, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. ITO Ward 7(2)(2), Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 2164/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Hasmukh Hiralal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 7532/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarhasmukh Hiralal Shah National Faceless 9/13, Nehru Nagar, Opp. Appeal Centre Bdd Chawl No. 9, Worli Vs. /Ito-22(1)(6), Mumbai-400 018 Room No. 206, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aavps2340A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 20.08.2025arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with sections 143(3A), 143(3B) and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by 2 Hasmukh Hiralal ... circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in confirming the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of Income Tax Act which is passed against the principal of natural justice. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

Harish Hari Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 33(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7509/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarharish Hari Gandhi Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shop No.1, Gokul Monarch, Tax, Circle 33(1), Mumbai Room No. 949, 9Th Floor, Kautilya Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400101 Bhawan, G-Block, Bandra (E), Pan:Aadpg1721F Mumbai-400051 Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla, Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram [For Brevity ‘The Ld.Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 10.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 43CSection 48

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Harish Hari Gandhi Circle-33(1), Mumbai (for brevity the Ld. AO), order passed under section 143(3) of the Act date of order 20.12.2019. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a promoter and developer and individual capacity

Edelweiss Crossover Opportunities Fund, Santacruz East, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Ward 22(1)(1), Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 7439/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10Section 115USection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270A

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 04.11.2025, arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax 2 ITA No. 7439/Mum/2025 Edelweiss Crossover Opportunities Fund Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], dated

Technocraft Industries (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT. 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7423/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, Adv. a/w Shri Akash GogariCAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 37

Assistant Commissioner of Income Technocraft Industries India Ltd. Tax-11(3)(1), Mumbai (for brevity the ld. Ld. AO), order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, date of both the orders 18.12.2019. 2. Since both the appeals pertain to the same assessee, involving similar issues arising

Technocraft Industries (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7422/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, Adv. a/w Shri Akash GogariCAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 37

Better Value Leasing & Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle 2(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

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

ITA 6082/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax C.C.-2(1)(1),Mumbai (for brevity the “Ld. AO”) order passed under section 143(3) of the Act date of order 27.12.2019. 2 Better Value Leasing & Finance Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the Case are that the assessee

Mark Engineers (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5757/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Mark Engineers (India) Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ci/1302, Hyde Park, Plot 8-10, Vs. Circle-14(1)(1), Sector 35/G, Kharghar, Aayakar Bhavan, Navi Mumbai-410210. M.K. Road, Pan : Aaacm4258R Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri B. Shankar For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 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 18-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Sustaining The Levy Of Penalty U/S.270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri B. ShankarFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Pvt Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5344/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(2)

short the Act) was issued on 22.09.2019 and duly served upon the assessee. 3.1 The assessment was thereafter completed under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions and disallowances to the returned income. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted

Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 27(1), Vashi Mumbai

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

ITA 5208/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarbhavik Shashikant Thakkar Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income G 601 Kukreja Palace Tax, Ward 27(1), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Station Opportunity Pok, Maharashtra-400075 Complex, Vashi-400703 Pan: Acypt3095J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Adv Respondent By : Ms. Rajni Rani Roy (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13, Date Of Order 28.11.2022. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Acit-27(1), Mumbai (For Brevity The “Ld. Ao”), Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Date Of Order 24.03.2015 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rajni Rani Roy (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250

impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. ACIT-27(1), Mumbai (for brevity the “Ld. AO”), order passed under section 143(3) date of order 24.03.2015 of the Act. 2 Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar 2. The registry informed that the appeal was filed with the 939 days delay

ITO, Thane vs. Murlidhar M Pichad HUF, Thane

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

ITA 4857/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Murlidhar M Pichad Huf, 6Th Floor, Flat No. 508, Bldg. 02, Ashar It Park, Vs. Gawand Baug Ashoka, Thane, Pokharan Road No. 2, Maharashtra-400604. Thane. Maharashtra-400601 Pan : Aaihm4676E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gaurang Shah (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA

Anirudh Daga, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(10(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 2176/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: The Itat

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘K(SMC)’ BENCH, MUMBAI "ीमती बीना "प"लई , माननीय "या"यक सद"य एवं

ITO, Ward-30(5), Delhi vs. Raghav Goel, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department of revenue is dismissed and

ITA 734/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarito Ward 30(5) Vs. Raghav Goel Room No. 1210, 12Th C-156, East Of Kailash Floor, E-2 Block, Civic Delhi – 110065 Centre, J.L. Marg Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aixpg7355H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

P a g e | 1 ITA No.734/Del/2025 & CO 85/Del/2025 Raghav Goel (AY: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Balhara Traders, Sonipat vs. Assessing Officer, Sonipat

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7291/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7291/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Balhara Traders, Vs Assessing Officer, 39B, First Floor, New Subzi Mandi, Nwr, 94, Range-60, Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana-131001 Sonipat, Haryana-131001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahfb1732H Assessee By: Sh. R. K. Vashist, Adv. & Sh. Gaurav Sahil, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078383900(1) Dated 11.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Vashist, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Ashok Kumar Mehrotra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 70(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4768/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarashok Kumar Mehrotra Vs. Ito, Ward 70(5) E-310, 3Rd Floor, Civic Centre, Greater Kailash-Ii, Minto Road New Dehli – 110048 New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alkpm8519K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

P a g e | 1 Ashok Kumar Mehrotra (AY: 2017-18) 09IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, DELHI

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi vs. Havells India Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4740/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Havells India Ltd. 904, 9Th Floor, Kg Marg, Surya Central Circle-17 Delhi Kiran Building, New Delhi Pan No. Aaach0351E

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801CSection 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

M/S Cheslind Textiles Ltd(Merged With Rswm Ltd)), Noida vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as 3

ITA 3973/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S Rswm Ltd. Room No. 343, 3Rd Floor, (Formerly Known As M/S Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Cheslind Textiles Ltd.) Extension, New Delhi – 55 Khari Gram, Gulabpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311021 (Appellant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aabcc2435K) M/S Cheslind Textiles Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, Ltd. R.No. 319, Third Floor, (Merged With Rswm Ara Centre, E-2, Ltd.), Jhandewalan Extn., Bhilwara Tower A-12, New Delhi Sector-1, Noida, Ncr Noida (Pan: Aabcc2435K) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aabcc2435K)

For Appellant: CA, S.S. NAGARFor Respondent: MS. MEENAKSHI DOHARE, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

Azizul Ghani, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer - ITO Ward 63(3) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2962/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

P a g e | 1 Azizul Ghani (AY: 2015-16) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE