← 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)

Hind Vijay Gymkhana, Vadodara vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal(Assessment Year: Na Hind Vijay Gymkhana, The Commissioner Of Vs. Opposite Badmani Baug, Income Tax, Near Navlakhi Compound, (Exemption), Vadodara-390001. Ahmedabad. [Pan :Aaath3200 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Respondent By: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(1)

provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). 5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted a letter enclosing therewith the intimation orders passed under section 143(1) of the Act for Assessment Years 2020-21 to 2024-25, which clearly reflect that the exemption u/s 11 has been consistently allowed

Heena Parthiv Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru/the ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2073/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalheena Parthiv Thakkar, Vs. Adit, Cpc, 38, Tulsi Co-Op. Hos. Soc. Ltd. Bengaluru/ Sagar Bungalow, Gulab Tower Income Tax Officer, Road, Sola Road, Thaltej, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad-380061. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

This discrepancy resulted in the disallowance of the alleged excess depreciation of Rs. 9,54,375 while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant clarified that the plants and machinery were used for less than 180 days, thereby qualifying for a depreciation allowance ... Nonetheless, the disallowance of Rs. 9,54,375 as per the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act has caused financial repercussions for the appellant. Heena P Thakkar Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 - 3– 6.4 The appellant's contentions have been duly considered. It is noted that

Navbharat Holidays, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1) (Previous Ward-5(2)(5)), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1753/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016–17 on 31.03.2017, declaring total income of Rs.43,320/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case was thereafter selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS), the specific reason being that "cash deposit during

Shrisant Savtamali Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahilyanagar vs. Pr. CIT - 1, Pune

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

ITA 972/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: CA Payal R. Rathi &For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 766/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

year had been applied towards charitable purposes in accordance with the objectives of the trust. However, the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and the exemption claim was not considered. Consequently, the income was computed at Rs.2,31,46,662/-, and a demand of Rs.1 ... response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under section 143(1) was sent via email, which the office bearers inadvertently failed to notice, leading to an unintentional delay in responding to the demand. Additionally

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 765/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

year had been applied towards charitable purposes in accordance with the objectives of the trust. However, the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and the exemption claim was not considered. Consequently, the income was computed at Rs.2,31,46,662/-, and a demand of Rs.1 ... response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under section 143(1) was sent via email, which the office bearers inadvertently failed to notice, leading to an unintentional delay in responding to the demand. Additionally

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 763/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

year had been applied towards charitable purposes in accordance with the objectives of the trust. However, the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and the exemption claim was not considered. Consequently, the income was computed at Rs.2,31,46,662/-, and a demand of Rs.1 ... response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under section 143(1) was sent via email, which the office bearers inadvertently failed to notice, leading to an unintentional delay in responding to the demand. Additionally

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

year had been applied towards charitable purposes in accordance with the objectives of the trust. However, the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and the exemption claim was not considered. Consequently, the income was computed at Rs.2,31,46,662/-, and a demand of Rs.1 ... response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under section 143(1) was sent via email, which the office bearers inadvertently failed to notice, leading to an unintentional delay in responding to the demand. Additionally

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 761/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

year had been applied towards charitable purposes in accordance with the objectives of the trust. However, the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, and the exemption claim was not considered. Consequently, the income was computed at Rs.2,31,46,662/-, and a demand of Rs.1 ... response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under section 143(1) was sent via email, which the office bearers inadvertently failed to notice, leading to an unintentional delay in responding to the demand. Additionally

Sukhanand Bhagvat Savase, Sawase Galli, Murud vs. ITO, Latur

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

ITA 1490/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1490/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sukhanand Bhagvat Savase, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Latur. Sawase Galli, Murud, Tq. & Dist. Latur- 413510. Pan : Hsops1105P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinayak Tele Revenue By : Shri Arvind Renge Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Kolkata [‘Ld Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. There Is Delay Of 375 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation, Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay Of 375 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Vinayak TeleFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Renge
Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Mrs Poonam Patni, Pune vs. ITO(It), Ward-3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1193/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1193/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Mrs. Poonam Patni, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.1A, F-1, Irani Market S. (It) Ward-3, Pune. Compound, Yerwada, Pune – 411006. Maharashtra. Pan: Aarpp6155A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C H Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-3, Chennai Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For A.Y.2022-23, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(1) Of The Act, Dated 26.10.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “C” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Pramode Kumar Himatsingka, L/H of Gita Devi Himatsingka (Since Deceased), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.737/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gita Devi Himatsingka (Since Deceased) Represented By L/H Pramode Kumar Himatsingka…………….………..……..…………………....Appellant 2C, Queens Park, Ballygunge, Kol-19. [Pan: Aarph3735N] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ranu Biswas, Acit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By Shri Pramod Kumar Himatsingka, Legal Heir Of Smt. Geeta Devi Himatsingka (Deceased), Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dated 19.02.2025, Confirming The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.10.2019, By The Cpc, Bangalore, For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.30,51,986/-. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act On 07.12.2018 & A Refund Of Rs.40,800/- Was Determined & Granted To The Assessee. Subsequently, The Cpc Passed A Rectification Order Dated 30.10.19 By

Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19, declaring a total income of Rs.30,51,986/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act on 07.12.2018, and a refund of Rs.40,800/- was determined and granted to the assessee. Subsequently, the CPC passed ... however, erroneously considered total dividend income exceeding ₹10,00,000, and made an adjustment of ₹3,90,187 under Section 143(1)/154, treating it as taxable under the head “Business Income”. We therefore find that the rectification order dated 30.10.2019 suffers from legal infirmity and is not sustainable

Dilkhos Memorial Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 558/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 558/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Dilkhos Memorial Trust,…….………..………Appellant 97, Trimurti Apartment, Park Street, Kolkata-700016, W.B. [Pan:Aabtd7407R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)

section 11(3) of the Act. The main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. Assessing Officer/CPC had issued intimation under section 143(1) calculating tax and interest on Rs.27,13,229/- to Rs.7,75,704/- where the appellant was facing losses on which tax could not be payable

Kabiguru Path Bhaban, Kolkata vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1165/KOL/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1165/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2024-25 Kobiguru Path Bhaban.………..……..…………………....Appellant 8B Tala, Bhabanath Sen Street, Shyambazar, Kol-4. [Pan: Aaetk0386P] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata…………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ranu Biswas, Acit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dated 25.03.2025, For The Assessment Year 2024–25, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2024–25 On 25.09.2024, Claiming Exemption Under Section 11 Of The Act. It Is Noted That The Audit Report Applicable In The Case Of The Assessee Was Form 10Bb, Which Was Filed On 26.12.2024. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act & Passed An Intimation Order Dated 28.01.2025, Disallowing Exemption Under Section 11, Citing That Form 10Bb Was Not Filed Within The Prescribed Time. Against This, The

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

case of the assessee was Form 10BB, which was filed on 26.12.2024. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, processed the return under Section 143(1) of the Act and passed an intimation order dated 28.01.2025, disallowing exemption under Section 11, citing that Form 10BB was not filed within the prescribed ... assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154, highlighting that Form 10BB was already filed on 26.12.2024, i.e., prior to the intimation under Section 143(1). The rectification was accepted by CPC and an order dated 03.03.2025 was passed under Section 154, thereby allowing the exemption and nullifying the demand

Binod Kumar Burnwal, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Durgapur

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

ITA 1154/KOL/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1154/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Binod Kumar Burnwal…….……...……..…………………....Appellant C/O Ghanashyam Burnwal, Banagram, Nutandanga, Gogla, Burdwan – 713383. [Pan: Aizpb0692A] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Durgapur…………………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Tiwari, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2025 Passed By The Nfac [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,89,094, Which Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass With Prior Approval Of The Competent Authority. Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued, But There Was No Compliance From The Assessee Or His Authorised Representative. In The Absence Of Proper Books Of Account Or Supporting Documents, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Collected Copies Of Audited Financial Statements From The Assessee’S Chartered Accountant. It Was Observed That During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250

case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹2,89,094, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS with prior approval of the competent authority. Statutory notices under Sections

Ss Theatres LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-11(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1038/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1038/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ss Theatres Llp, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, 2Nd Street Subba Rao Avenue Vs. Income Tax, Greams Road S.O., Non Corporate Circle-11(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aadfs 5384D]

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 154Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 569/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

assessee filed its return of income on October 29, 2001, disclosing an income of Rs. 12,640. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), on August 27, 2002, and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

assessee filed its return of income on October 29, 2001, disclosing an income of Rs. 12,640. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), on August 27, 2002, and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued

Natural Remedies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 266/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 Natural Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.5-B,Veerasandra Industrial Area, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100, Karnataka. Bangalore. Pan : Aaacn 6990 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 43B

ought to have held that the intimation u/s. 143(1) is bad in law for not giving an opportunity as per proviso to section 143(1) of the Act before issuing the intimation u/s. 143(1) by making a disallowance. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ... authorities. 7. Considering the rival submissions, we noted that there is disallowance under section 43B of the Act while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act and the detailed written submission was made before the CIT(A) but the learned CIT(A) has not considered properly. Therefore

Sri Sri Vaishnavi Pattina Souhardha Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Gangavathi vs. ITO Ward 1, Koppal

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

ITA 1115/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Sri Sri Vaishnavi Pattina Souharda Sahakari Vs. Ito, Sangha Niyamita, Ward – 1, Shop No.9 T.A.P.C.M.S Complex, Koppal. C.B.S Gunj Gangavathi Dt- Koppal 583227,Karnataka. Pan : Aalas 9104 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Deepak, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 40Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)

Rs.Nil, after claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act to the tune of Rs.16,14,282/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case Page 2 of 6 was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee filed