← 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)

Mysore District Judicial Employee Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1271/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 140BSection 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

reason that return was not filed under section 139(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the CPC passed intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 29-12- 2023 disallowing the assessee’s claim of deduction under section ... that once the return has been held invalid, the same cannot be used for drawing any adverse inference against the after processing under section 143(1) of the Act. 10. On the other hand, the learned DR before me supported the order of the authorities below by making refence

DCIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 992/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

date of order 16/12/2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the CPC, Bengaluru (in short, the “Ld. AO”) passed under section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 26/12/2021. 2. Both the assessee and revenue has taken the following grounds:- “GROUND NO. I: DISALLOWANCE ... assessee filed its return of income within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bengaluru. During the processing, the CPC disallowed an amount of Rs.9,75,96,266/- claimed under Section

The Vijay N Dharamshi HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 969/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.969/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2022-23) The Vijay N Dharamshi V/S. Income Tax Officer Huf बिधम Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai 81St Floor, Pramod Income Tax Office, Piramal Prashad, R A Kidwai Road Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai Wadala, Mumbai 400031 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aachv3818B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri. Ashok SharmaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 115Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Lok Everest Co-Op Hsg Limitd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 908/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Lok Everest Co-Op Hsg Limited Ito, Ward - 41(2)(3), B2 Mezzanine Floor Lok Everest, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Jsd Road, Mulund (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400080. Mumbai-400051 Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaaak 6797 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee Represented By Shri Shashank Mehta –Ca/ Ar Department Represented By Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/04/2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 80ISection 80P(2)(d)

operative Bank. The CPC while processing return of income not allowed such deduction. The intimation Lok Everest Co-Op HSG Limited under section 143(1) dated 23.12.2021 was sent to the assessee. The assessee immediately filed an application for rectification in the order dated 23.12.2021. However, no order on rectification ... dated 28.06.2024. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal in favour of the assessee held that there was no provisions for making disallowance under section 143(1)(a) because disallowance was permissible with regards to section 10AA, 80IA, 80IAB, 80IB, 80IC, 80ID or section 80IE. It was only

Income Tax Officer -5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shree Sundha Steels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA 1756/Mum/2025

ITA 1756/MUM/2025[2008]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeincome-Tax Officer -5(3)(1), Vs M/S Shree Sundha Steels Private Mumbai, Limited, 5Th Room No.526, Floor, 15/16, D-Wing,Groundfloor, Gora Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 Gandhi Palace, 122, Khetwadi Back 020 Road, Khetwadi, Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Aaics1816M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR. DR.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

case are that the assessee filed its return of income (ROI) under section 139(1) of the Act, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, notice under

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula

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

ITA 1093/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

date of order 16/12/2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the CPC, Bengaluru (in short, the “Ld. AO”) passed under section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 26/12/2021. 2. Both the assessee and revenue has taken the following grounds:- “GROUND NO. I: DISALLOWANCE ... assessee filed its return of income within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bengaluru. During the processing, the CPC disallowed an amount of Rs.9,75,96,266/- claimed under Section

Sampurna Family Trust, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6730/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 10(34)Section 131(1)Section 143(1)Section 254(1)

defective. Thus, intimation issued by Central Processing Center (OPC) on said return is also invalid as same could not be processed under section 143(1). Thus, disallowance/adjustment of exempt income is bad in law. However, the Ld. AR of 2 Sampurna Family Trust (AY 2018-19) the assessee submit that ... submission of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authorities. I find that CPC while issuing intimation under section 143(1) on 13.03.2020 made adjustment of Rs. 12,50,016/- by disallowing exempt income, which consist of dividend income from domestic Private company and accrued interest

DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Income Tax Department vs. Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 4707/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7Th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aafps1306Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi - CAFor Respondent: Shri BhangepatilPushkaraj Ramesh
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRINARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Feedertech Pte Ltd, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

ITA 3588/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44BSection 90

Singapore the freight income of the assessee from the operation of ships in international traffic. The return of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act wherein the assessee was denied the tax relief claimed by the assessee. The assessee filed a rectification petition and the same ... ground that the assessee himself has declared the income under section 44B of the Act and that there is no provision under section 143(1) of the Act to reduce the income of the assessee as claimed in the return of income. With regard to the claim of exemption under

Feedertech Pte Ltd, Nerul, Navi Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nariman Point

ITA 4209/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44BSection 90

Singapore the freight income of the assessee from the operation of ships in international traffic. The return of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act wherein the assessee was denied the tax relief claimed by the assessee. The assessee filed a rectification petition and the same ... ground that the assessee himself has declared the income under section 44B of the Act and that there is no provision under section 143(1) of the Act to reduce the income of the assessee as claimed in the return of income. With regard to the claim of exemption under

Gujarat State Aviation Infrastructure Company Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Wad-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 81/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application filed
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 28Section 37

Form-6 as "Depreciation and amortisation". b. The disallowance of 1,23,689 made u/s 37 in the intimation under section 143(1) had already been made u/s 28 to 44DA in return of Income filed and accepted in the intimation also. Hence, it has resulted in double disallowance

S B Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2052/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2023-24

Section 143(1)Section 191Section 199

Intimation has been prepared mechanically without application of mind and ignoring the facts and submissions. The intimation is outside purview of provisions of section 143(1)(1). The intimation be quashed. 1.1 The denial of credit of TDS of Rs.4,61,846/- is not permissible while preparing Intimation under section ... 143(1). The adjustment does not fall within any of the clause under section 143(1) 2.0 The CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessing officer erred in not allowing credit in respect of tax deducted at source of Rs.18,44,033/- being tax deducted at source

Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1997/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 41

1) intimation, the same to be treated as not passed and therefore not served on the assessee. 11.1. As per 2nd proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act no intimation under sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year ... which the return was filed. Further as per 1st proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act, the intimation shall be sent to the assessee declaring the loss assessed/adjusted but no tax, interest or fee payable or no refund due to the assessee. Since the intimation made u/s. 143(1

Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1996/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 41

1) intimation, the same to be treated as not passed and therefore not served on the assessee. 11.1. As per 2nd proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act no intimation under sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year ... which the return was filed. Further as per 1st proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act, the intimation shall be sent to the assessee declaring the loss assessed/adjusted but no tax, interest or fee payable or no refund due to the assessee. Since the intimation made u/s. 143(1

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel vs. Flowline Systems Pvt Ltd, New Panvel

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2168/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2168/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner V Flowline Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, S 401, 402, Bhoomi Landmark, Panvel. New Panvel, Dist-Raigad. Maharashtra – 410206. Pan: Aabcf1096R Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri A R Sakhalkar & Shri M.R.Dharmadhikari –Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 14.08.2024 For A.Y.2021-22 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Issued By Adit(Cpc), Bangalore. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 250Section 250(4)Section 46A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

(Late) Audinarayana Reddy Althuri Rep.by L/R Mahesh Reddy Althuri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 39/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA D K ChhablaniFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

much dispute. The return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 on 27/07/2013 was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was never issued. By the date of search on 15/11/2018, four years elapsed after ... stated earlier, the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 on 27/07/2013 was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by 30/09/2014. Neither notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued nor any proceedings were pending as on the date

ACIT, Circlle-34, Kolkata vs. Subhas Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1677/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 246ASection 3Section 69A

income of Rs. 66,88,500/-, The ROI was processed by the revenue and an 9 intimation was issued to the petitioner/HUF under section 143(1) of the Act on 21-11-2017. 3.2 In the aftermath of the judgment in Union of India v Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com

Harjinder Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panipat

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 70/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Itat. The Assessee

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

1 Harjinder Singh v. ITO A.Y. 2018-19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI Ms

Sunita Sharma, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Centralized Processing Center

ITA 324/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI Ms. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)

passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Madurai, arising out of the intimation passed by the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 28.12.2022 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. None appeared on behalf

Honeywell International India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2933/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-10(1), 1120-21, 11Th Floor, Tower-A, Delhi Dlf Tower, Jasola District Centre, New Friends Colony, South-East Delhi, New Delhi Pan: Aabca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2025 Order

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 12, Mumbai’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1061122525(1), dated 19.02.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds: “Appeal under ... Centre, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-12 Mumbai under Section 250 of the Act in relation to intimation order passed under section 143(1) of the Act. GROUNDS OF OBJECTION The following grounds are independent of and without any prejudice to one another Disallowance