← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)13,466 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)

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. 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.

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.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)

Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Delhi vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 1(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1878/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)

same belatedly but before completion of Page 4 of 6 ITA No. 1878/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2020-21] Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha assessment/processing under section 143(1). The ratios of the above decisions therefore squarely applies to the facts of the case. We therefore, hold that filing of audit report

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Rba Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6044/DEL/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 6044/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Rba Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 A-66, Sector-63, Noida- Noida 201301, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aagcr9285F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Virsain Agarwal, Adv& Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv Revenue By Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

This Court in the case of Court On its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 352 ITR 273, while dealing with Section 143(1) of the Act of 1961, has held that the law requires that, the intimation under Section 143(1) should be communicated to the assessee ... extract of the aforesaid decision is reproduced hereinunder: “… 33. The second grievance of the assessee is with regard to the uncommunicated intimiations under Section 143(1) which remained on paper/file or the computer of the Assessing Officer. This is serious challenge and a matter of grave concern. The law requires

St Marys Education Society Aligarh, Aligarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 580/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

ITA No.580/Del/2024 & 1667/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Saint Marys School, Mainpuri vs. ADIT, Exepmtion Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1667/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] St. Marys Education Vs Dcit (Exemption), Society, Our Lady Circle, Ghaziabad Fatima Secondary School, Ram Ghat Road, Aligarh, U.P-201002. Pan-Aaats4351G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Saint Marys School, Vs Asst. Director Of Opp. Kotwali Mainpuri, Income Tax, Uttar Pradesh-205001. Exemption Circle, Pan-Aaets1727L Ghaziabad. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vikesh Bansal, Ca Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.12.2023 & 31.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre & 1667/Del/2023 (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Against The Intimation U/S 143(1) By Cpc Dated 25.11.2019 & 26.05.2020 For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2019- 20 Respectively.

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

ITA No.580/Del/2024 & 1667/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vikram Electric Equipment P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 4651/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shir Mahavir Singh() Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

I.T.A. No. 4651/Del/2018 & CO No.74/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHIR MAHAVIR SINGH

Dhaban Gram Sewa Sahakari Samity, Sangaria vs. ITO Ward 1, Hanumangarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 771/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(iv)

date of order 29/03/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld.CPC, Bengaluru (in short, “the CPC”) passed under section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 31/05/2019. 2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 120 days. The assessee filed a duly notarised affidavit ... while filing return of income claimed exemption under section 80P(2)(iv) amount to Rs.3,73,110/-. During the processing of return under section 143(1), the said claim was duly rejected for violation of Section 80AC of the Act. The Assessee filed the return of income with delay

The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited, Bajwara, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Hoshiarpur

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 318/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 318/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) The Straw Board Manufacturing Ito Company Ltd Ward 1 बनाम/ Vs. C/O Lala Shri Chunilal Free Hospital Hoshiarpur. Bajwara, Hoshiarpur – 146 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5095-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sandeep Vijh (Ca) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata [Cit(A)] Dated 26-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S. 143(1) Of The Act On 22-11-2022 Proposing Certain Adjustment Of Rs.6.58 Lacs To The Returned Income Of The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed Adjustment Of Rs.5.94 Lacs Against Which The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. Having

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh (CA) –Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 43B

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Keerti Flour Mills, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Guwahati

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80I

merit by this Bench or the matter could be, alternatively, remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment under Section 143(1) of the Act. 1.2 The Ld. DR had no objection in case these matters were to be remanded back for fresh consideration. 2. We have ... cases back to the Ld. AO for fresh assessment after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee under the provision of section 143(1)(a), first proviso thereon. We direct accordingly, 3. In result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. Nos. 99 & 100/GTY/2025 Keerti Flour

Fung Peng Namchoom, Chowkham vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Digboi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 67/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Bhati, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 10(1)Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250Section 69A

Arunachal Pradesh, filed his income tax return for the AY 2020-21 on 30.03.2021, declared Nil income. The return was processed under section 143(1) on 07.05.2021 at the returned income. The assessee claimed exempt agricultural income of Rs. 34,98,705/- u/s 10(1) and exempt business income

Makhanlal Gattani, Jorhat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jorhat

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the date of processing u/s.143(1) by the CPC. The claim of deduction has been denied only on technical grounds and not on the merits of the claim.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 80Section 80I

Addl./Joint CIT(A) [JCIT(A)] vide appellate order dated 10.03.2025 ought to have hold that the impugned intimation dated 10.08.2020 issued under section 143(1) by the learned AO is bad in law, facts and procedure. 2. For that the Id. JCIT(A) was not justified in not holding ... have gone through the documents before us including the orders of AO/Addl./JCIT(A). It is pertinent to note that an amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act was brought in w.e.f. 01.04.2021, to include the entire set of provisions of Chapter-VI under the purview

Keerti Flour Mills, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3) Guwahati, Guwahati

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80I

merit by this Bench or the matter could be, alternatively, remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment under Section 143(1) of the Act. 1.2 The Ld. DR had no objection in case these matters were to be remanded back for fresh consideration. 2. We have ... cases back to the Ld. AO for fresh assessment after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee under the provision of section 143(1)(a), first proviso thereon. We direct accordingly, 3. In result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. Nos. 99 & 100/GTY/2025 Keerti Flour

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-3(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Dcit, Circle – 3(1), Vs. M/S. Sonpal Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rajkot Aayakar Bhavan, Room Dhari Bagsara Road, Nr. Ice No. 114, 1St Floor, Race Course Factory, Amreli Ring Road, Rajkot Pan No.: Aajcs0177N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am; By Way Of This Appeal, The Revenue, Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 16.11.2017, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Grievances Raised By The Revenue, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 13,96,33,023/- Holding That Provision Of Section 195 Will Not Be Applicable. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Ignoring The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of Foreign Commission Expenses Before The A.O. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of The C.I.T. (A) May Be Set Aside & That Of The A.O. Be Restored To The Above Extent. Dcit Vs. M/S. Sonpal Export Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195

assessee”) for assessment year (AY) 2012-13, on 30/09/2012, declaring total income of Rs. 1,64,75,250/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the returned income of Rs. 1,64,75,250/- without any modifications. Later on, the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Kamlaprabha L/H of Late Shri Gopal Lal Ji Goswami, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

ITA 94/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-Sr.DR a
Section 144Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Siddha Sakthi Arutjothi Kalvi Nilayam, Arialur, Ariyalur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Trichy

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

ITA 3393/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3393/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Siddha Sakthi Arutjothi Vallalar Kalvi Income Tax Officer, Nilayam, Vs. Exemption Ward, Lingathadimedu, Trichy. Ariyalur – 621 705. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aabts-1168-C] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. P.M Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Balakumaran Balachandran, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1418/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri V. Balaji, CA
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND

Ajit Kundanmalji Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4456/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanajitkundanmalji Jain Ito Ward 20(1)(1), 1/35, 29B Tarachand Building, D. N. R. No. 124, 1St Floor, Piramal Singh Road, Love Lane, Mazgaon, Vs. Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 010 400 012. Pan: Adypj1496Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Madhuri Sunil Zode, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted

ITA 419/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Ito, Ward 20(2)(1), Flat No. 8, 8Th Floor, Singers Wood, Piramal Chamber, 27Th Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapz 1530 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Najeeb Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3194/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3194/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Najeeb Charitable Trust A-28, Everest Apartment, J.P Road, Jogeshwari (West) Mumbai- 400 053 Pan : Aaatn0425G

For Appellant: Shri Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually present)For Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 5

return of assessee u/s. 143(1) of the Act, whereas, the since the issue is debatable such adjustment are beyond the scope of section 143(1) of the Act. It is submitted that such action of the revenue is contrary to the principles of real income theory and hence

Assistant Commissioner-19(1), Mumbai vs. Kdm Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, in terms of our

ITA 3040/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3040/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kdm Impex 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbag, Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aadfk2444F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 2 Acit-19(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kdm Impex

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ मुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL

Eight Roads Investment Advisors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as per our aforesaid

ITA 2928/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2928/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Eight Roads Investment Advisors Private Limited 16Th Floor, Plot No.82, Avighna House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan: Aabcf1370N ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cpc, Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms.Chandari Shah a/wFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

appellant no order u/s 6 Eight Roads Investment Advisors Private Limited Vs. ACIT/CPC, Bengaluru, 143(3) of the Act or intimation under section 143(1) of the Act had been received by the Appellant. Further the CPC. Bengaluru passed a Rectification Order u/s.154