← 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)

Football Players Association of India, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 415/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Football Player Association of India, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 414/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the ITAT for the sake of convenience the grounds pertaining to ITA No. 414/Kol/2025 (AY 2018-19) are extracted for reference: “1. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the A.O (CPC) in assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,07,17,801/- against the returned income of Rs.63,510/- by denying the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the Audit Report in Form 10B and the Ret

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

Delta Dealers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(3), Kolkata

ITA 650/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.650/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Delta Dealers Pvt. Ltd…………………………………………...….……….Appellant Baltikuri, Kalitala, P.O. Dasnagar, Howrah-711113. [Pan: Aaccd9633P] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(3), Kolkata.………….......................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, C.A & Taraknath Jaiswal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Under The Name Of Orange Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Being Its Pan No.Aabco0792P. The Return Of The Assessee Initially Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act & The Assessee Complied To The Notices & Assessment Order Was Framed By Determining Total Income Of Rs.45,500/-. Immediately, Thereafter The Said Assessment Order Was Set Aside By The Ld. Pcit, Kolkata-2 By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act. In Consequence To That, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Directing The Assessee To Submit Detailed Information Regarding The Shareholders Along With Supported Evidences In Respect Of Share Capital & Share

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263Section 68

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

Trisita Engineering LLP, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2040/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 40

adjustment/disallowance of Rs. 15,00,000 which is not permissible as it is not covered by any of the situations mentioned in Section 143(1)(a)(i) to 143(1)(a)(vi) resulting in an adjustment which is ultra vires. 6. That under the facts and circumstances of the case ... upholding the adjustment/disallowance made by the Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru not permissible being outside the purview of Section 143(1)(a)(i) to 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That under the facts and circumstances of the case

Nagarajan Shapoorna, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Madurai

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

ITA 812/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.812/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Nagarajan Shapoorna, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2A, Vp Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Non Corporate Ward 1(7), Visalakshipuram, Madurai 625 014. Madurai. [Pan:Djwps7535G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Gurugram For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer Towards Foreign Tax Credit Claimed At ₹.1,82,847/- Under Section 90/90A Of 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasiram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

declaring total income of ₹.16,55,300/- after claiming foreign tax credit of ₹.1,82,847/-. The CPC passed intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 13.10.2022 by disallowing the claim of foreign tax credit. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the ground that ... assessee claimed FTC of ₹.1,82,847/- under section 90/90A of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by denying the claim of FTC. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee filed Form 67 belatedly and also mentioned wrong

Sethu Pillai Nagalingam, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thiruvarur

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

ITA 1241/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1241/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sethu Pillai Nagalingam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Anna Square, Ward 1, Thiruvarur 610 001. Tiruvarur. [Pan:Aadpn3943J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2025 Passed By The Addl. Jcit(A)-7, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 8 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Treating Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period As 2

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

income for AY 2017-18 on 21.09.2017 admitting total income of ₹.4,09,020/-. The return was processed by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposit during the year. Against statutory notices, the assessee filed

Gangavalli Educational Trust, Salem vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Salem

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

ITA 1226/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1226/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gangavalli Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 9/636, Pallakadu, Naduvalur, Exemptions Ward, Gangavalli, Salem 636 105. Salem. [Pan:Aabtg8124A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer, the assessee filed statutory Form 10B on 13.01.2020, i.e., after processing of return of income and passing intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 02.10.2019. When the Assessing Officer specifically asked about condonation of delay in filing Form 10B, the assessee has submitted that ... Exemption), Salem, the Assessing Officer adopted the total income at ₹.1,29,81,684/- as was determined in the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 02.10.2019 and completed the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 17.04.2021. On appeal

Sankaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(7), Chennai

ITA 1212/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1212/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Sankaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 73/28, Balakrishnan Street Extension, Non Corporate Ward 17(7), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai. [Pan:Bpbps4698F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.02.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-5, Mumbai For The

Section 143(1)Section 90

however, not filed the prescribed Form 67 for claiming the foreign tax credit. The Assessing Officer, CPC passed intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 29.08.2024 rejected foreign tax credit claimed under section 90 of the Act. On appeal, the Id. CIT(A) confirmed the denial of foreign ... claimed FTC of ₹.19,84,504/- under section 90 of the Act. The return filed by the assessee on 23.07.2023 was processed under section 143(1) of the Act dated 29.08.2024 by denying the claim of foreign tax credit since the assessee could not file Form 67. Thereafter, the assessee

Appviewx Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1137/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1137/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 App View X Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Module No.107, 1St Floor, Tax, Elcot Sez, Tidel Park, Coimbatore, Coimbatore Circle-1, Tamil Nadu- 641 104. Coimbatore [Pan: Aaoca7136L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Saravana Kumar C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.Saravana Kumar C.AFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(1)

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

The Congregation of Brothers of St.Michael, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above order

ITA 1122/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1122/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2023-24 The Congregation Of The Brothers Of Assistant Commissioner Of St.Michel, Income Tax (Exemptions), P.B.No.6 Bishop House, Coimbatore Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 001. [Pan: Aaatt3652K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Vijay Narayanan, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.Vijay Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 143(1)

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

Kulalar Kalyana Mandapa Trust, Tirupur vs. ACIT, Exmeptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1103/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Kulalar Kalyana Mandapa Trust, Assistant Commissioner Of No.81, West Car Street, Income Tax (Exemptions), Avanash S.O, Coimbatore Avanashi, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu-641 654. [Pan: Aaatk7904M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Bhupendran, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)

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

Thejaswini Jakkaraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(2), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: S/Shri B.S. Balachandra, Advocate & Gurudath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 87A

therefore rejection of return of income of the assessee claiming such rebate is not proper. He further submitted that the provisions of section 143(1)(a) also do not refer to the adjustment on account of relief u/s. 87A of the Act. Therefore, the order

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore

ITA 2348/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250

ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024& CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Bangalore Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore “A”BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

Power Research and Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the additional ground is allowed

ITA 1100/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

issuing a proposal communicating the adjustments proposed to be made by him as prescribed under the first proviso of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred ... contribution on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the adjustment made under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is bad in law as it exceeds the limited scope to carry out prima facie adjustments and arithmetical corrections stipulated under section

Ashutosh Girish Bharkhada, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 929/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 17(1)

Ashutosh Girish Bharkhada without jurisdiction as the said addition is a debatable issue and hence, could not have been made under Section 143(1) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in law, the impugned addition made by CPC, Bengaluru is beyond jurisdiction of 143(1 ... relation to criteria set out in the Section. It is Appellants case that, the adjustment made in the impugned Order intimation under Section 143(1) is beyond the scope of criteria mentioned in the Section and therefore, it is bad in law. 3. On the facts

Odyssey Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Dict Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 808/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 808/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 807/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Odyssey Corporation Ltd. B/102, Haridarshan Bldg., Kandivali West S. O Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400067 V/S. बनाम Dcit-Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0463C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi A/W Ms. Dinkle Hariya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Yogesh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Ms. DinkleFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

beyond his power/competence u/s.143 (1) of the Act; (ii) The claim of the Appellant does not fall under any of the limbs of section 143(1)(a) of the Act and such a claim could not be treated as an incorrect claim; (iii) In any case and without prejudice

Odyssey Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 807/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 808/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 807/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Odyssey Corporation Ltd. B/102, Haridarshan Bldg., Kandivali West S. O Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400067 V/S. बनाम Dcit-Circle 2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0463C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi A/W Ms. Dinkle Hariya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Yogesh Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Ms. DinkleFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

beyond his power/competence u/s.143 (1) of the Act; (ii) The claim of the Appellant does not fall under any of the limbs of section 143(1)(a) of the Act and such a claim could not be treated as an incorrect claim; (iii) In any case and without prejudice

Osho Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circel 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3174/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(1)

delay may be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merits. Without prejudice to the above, On merits: 1. Adjustments made under Section 143(1), without following the due process of law, resulted in a reduction of business losses by Rs.20,56,596/-; the said adjustments may be directed ... deleted. 4. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the first proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act mandates that no adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the appellant of such adjustments, either in "writing" or "through electronic mode", and that "any response received

Rahul Ramesh Ektare, Thane vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2886/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rahul Ramesh Ektare Circle 5(3)(1) 1101, Dahila, Runwal Garden City, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Balkum, Balukum S.O., Thane, Vs. Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400608 Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aafpe 5470 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin M Chavan, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

Deducted at Source (TDS) on salary and ₹10,000/- paid as self- assessment tax. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 28.05.2019, wherein the returned income was accepted. However, the claim for TDS and self- assessment tax credit was disallowed, resulting ... take further action in the matter.” 2.4 The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) are summarised as follows:  The intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 20.05.2019 and the last date for filing appeal under Section 249(2)(b) of the Act was 20.06.2019.  The assessee explained