“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)

Alphatech Systems, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (1), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.343/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Alphatech Systems Vs. Income Tax Officer Guntur Ward 2 (1) Pan:Aazfa7176Q Guntur (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms Sandhya Samudrala, Adv राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/11/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Ms Sandhya Samudrala, AdvFor Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

ITA No 343 of 2024 Alphatech Systems IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhanatpan Before Shri Vijay Pal

Smita S Mehta, Kolkata vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 599/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 54F

through the cited decision and find that Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held as thus: “The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) to make an adjustment and to issue an intimation is, in my view, limited not only to the obvious but also to that ... Bombay High Court held that (at page 71): "This is because the scope of the powers to make prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1 )(a) is somewhat coterminous with the power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record under Section 154..., In its literal sense, 'prima facie' means

Alok Kumar Chamria (HUF), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 32(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1487/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1487/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alok Kumar Chamria (Huf)…………........………………....Appellant 25E Chamria House, Shakespeare Sarani, 3Rd Floor, W.B. – 700017. [Pan: Aafha4854F] Vs. Ito, Ward-32(3), Kolkata.….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta), Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 03.08.2017 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.12,14,280/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Refund Of Rs.26,980/- Was Issued. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Specific Details. The Assessee Submitted Responses & Uploaded Documents Periodically. During The Scrutiny Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Declared Long-Term Capital Gain (‘Ltcg’) From The Sale Of Immovable Property. The Assessing Officer Noted That Sale Consideration For Seven Flats As Per Sale Deed Was Lower Than The Stamp Duty Value. He Invoked

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

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

Balaji Metal and Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1486/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश

Kayakkodi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No F 1481, Kayakkodi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 251/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Institute Management Committee Iti Kuzhalmannam, Palakkad vs. ACIT, Palakkad

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 246/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Hemanth P., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 167B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM

Idappadi Panchayat Union Empl. & Teachers Co-Op. Thrift & Credit Soceity Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 2333/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2333/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Idappadi Panchayat Union The Income Tax Officer, Employees & Teachers Vs. Ward-1(6), Co.Operative Thrift & Credit Society Salem. Limited S 1497, Door No.3, Kannara Street, Bazaar Street, Idappadi, Salem – 637 101. [Pan: Aaabi 0120P]

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

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

The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2139/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1898, 2137 & 2139/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2020-21 & 2020-2021) The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ward 2(1), No.330, Bhavani Road, Erode Perundurai, Erode 638 052. [Pan: Aabat 2523R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Irs, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘स’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार

The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Co Operative Bank Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2137/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

Murugesan Jothi, Gobi vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2072/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2072/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Murugesan Jothi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 223/1, Maturha Cotspinn Private Ltd. Ward 2(1) Gobi 638 452. Erode Tamil Nadu [Pan: Acapj 0446K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.C.Ravi Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.C.Ravi Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार

The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Co Operative Bank Limited, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1898/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

Hubli Sathyanarayanasetty Chandrappa, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1972/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gunashekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 154

Audit Report, which were duly offered for tax. However, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), while Page 2 of 4 processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, added ₹28,61,528/- to the total income of the assessee. Following this, the assessee considered two options: either ... appeal of the assessee. 3. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee contended that the CPC had made a double addition under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, which was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT(A) when the appeal was rejected. According to the learned

Akhila Karnataka Bramana Mahasabha(Regd), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions)Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 1955/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2022-23 M/S. Akhila Karnataka Bramana Vs. The Income Tax Officer Mahasabha (Regd), (Exemptions), No.5/1, Shankar Mutta Road, Ward – 1, Shankarpuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaata 8481 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1068118463(1)] Dated 29.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Registered Trust Eligible For Exemption Under Section 12A & Recognized Under Section 80G Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 05.11.2022 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption Under Section 11 & 12 Of The Act. The Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80G

wherein it is mention a sum of Rs.11,21,140/- for accumulation and Rs.22,26,500/-was deposited. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.22,52,692/- against the declared Nil income. While processing the return

Chikkannaputtamma Educational Trust, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions)Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1513/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Pranav G. Ambekar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 1Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 234Section 234ASection 250

ITA No.1513/Bang/2024 Chikkanna Puttamma Educational Trust, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE

Monish Bipin Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy.Com. of Income Tax, CPC, (Jao: Circle 27(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4957/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Monish Bipin Shah Dy. Com. Of Income Tax, C-1002, Lodha Bellissimo, Cpc [Jao : Circle 27(2), N. M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai] Jacob Circle, Room No. 419, Mumbai- 400011. 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Flat 22, Nirmala Mahal, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Bomenji Petit Road Breach Commercial Complex, Vashi, Candy, Navi Mumbai- 400703. Mumbai- 400036. Pan: Aglps5759F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh/Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

noticed that return of income was filed by assessee at Rs. 1,47,76,346/- and the same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The employer of the appellant had made some changes in salary income of the appellant and revised his salary certificate for the amount

Darius Cavasji Shroff, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4731/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhridarius Cavasji Shroff V/S. Dcit, Circle 16(2) Moonlight, Flat No. 8, 158, बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. M. Karve Road, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacps7090J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka JainFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makwana

Section 143(1)Section 172Section 174Section 174ASection 175Section 176Section 192Section 2(1)Section 2(9)Section 250

surcharge of 15% as claimed by the Appellant and delete the interest and additional tax levied while processing the return of income under section 143(1). 4) That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing

The Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Limited, Prabhadevi, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(1)(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4513/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21 The Saraswat Co- Dcit- 1(3)(1) Operative Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Eknath Thakur Bhavan, M. K. Road, 953 Apasaheb Marathe Mumbai- 400020. Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi S. O., Mumbai- 400025. Pan: Aabat4497Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker & Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule- CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 37Section 37oSection 41

claiming refund of Rs.5,20,95,310. Subsequently, the ROI filed by the assessee was processed and intimation under section 143(1) of the income-tax Art, 1961 (Act) The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited ; A. Y.2020-21 dated 24/12/2021 was issued assessing total income at Rs.6 ... disallowed in the ITR under two heads. As this is already offered as income further adjustment u/s section 143(1) of Rs 2,31,41,20,871/- was not required. Assessing a disallowance already disallowed is actually double taxing the same income. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Gursharan Kaur, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4270/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gursharan Kaur Ito Ward 24 (1)(1) A-301, Skylark Chs, Opp. Vikram Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – Petrol Pump A Bunglows Juhu Versova Vs. 400012. Link Road, 4 Bunglow Andheri West Mumbai -400 053 Pan/Gir No. Bkopk8032M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Tejas Chandrana Respondent By : Mr. Tushar Mohite Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Order Passed By Central Processing Center ("Cpc") U/S 154 Of The Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Cpc Of Denying Relief U/S 90/90A Due To Late Filing Of Form 67. 3. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Levy Of Interest U/S. 234B & 234C Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri. Tejas ChandranaFor Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mohite Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Bofa Securities India Limited, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Centre of Income Tax Department, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4192/MUM/2024[AY 2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhribofa Securities India V/S. Acit-Circle-(4)(1)(1), Limited बनाम Mumbai Ground Floor, A Wing, One Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Bkc, G Block, Bkc, Road, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacd0535G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi

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

towards employees' contribution to PF since the said adjustment does not fall within the ambit of adjustments provided under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act while processing the return of income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred

Smt. Ashrafi Devi Shiksha Samitti, Vill- Bajaderpur vs. Addl JCIT (A)- 9, Mumbai, National Faceless Appeal Centre

Appeal is dismissed with liberty granted to the Appellant to file appeal afresh before the Delhi

ITA 3989/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Mumbai Benches for the reasons that the order impugned was passed by the Learned Additional Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -9, Mumbai, whereas the

For Appellant: Shri Devashish BhadauriaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 143(1)Section 250

referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Intimation Order, dated 08/03/2023, passed under Section 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. 3 When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative