← 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)

Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.Ustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryfakhri Co-Operative Versus Commissioner Of Housing Society Ltd. Income Tax 422, Matharpakhadi Road, (Appeals) Mazgaon, Nfac, Delhi. Maharashtra-400010. Pan: Aaaaf1078N Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Murtaza Quresh Ghandiali & Ms. Sabeena Darukhanawal, Ar Respondent/Department By : Ms. Mini Vinod, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2023 Order Narender Kumar Choudhry, J.M: This Assessee/Appellant Herein Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.01.2023 Impugned Herein Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / Nfac, Delhi {In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Ay 2013-14. Fakhri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 2. In This Case, The Appellant Earned Interest From Co- Operative & Other Banks & Therefore, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 On 22.08.2013 Which Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Dated 12.11.2014 Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, The Amounts Of Rs. 2,08,071/- & Rs. 50,000/- Have Not Been Considered Under Section 80P(2)(C)(Ii) & Consequently Disallowed.

For Appellant: Sh. Murtaza QureshFor Respondent: Ms. Mini Vinod, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)

filed its return of income for the AY 2013-14 on 22.08.2013 which was processed by CPC and vide intimation dated 12.11.2014 under section 143(1) of the Act, the amounts of Rs. 2,08,071/- and Rs. 50,000/- have not been considered under section

DCIT-17(1), Mumbai vs. Navkar Agebcies, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 17(1) V. M/S. Navkar Agencies C/7, Vireshwar Chaya Room No. 117, 1St Floor Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (E) G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai - 400057 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aacfn3354L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Satyaprakash Maruti Prasad Sharma, Mumbai vs. ACIT-20(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 298/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.298/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Satyaprakash Maruti Prasad बिधम/ Acit-20(3) Sharma R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Vs. 55/4, Rishikesh Bhawan, Piramal Chambers, Aai Mai Merwanji Street, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400012. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aljps5054L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.01.2023 Passed For Ay 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.41,79,889/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business As Works Contractor (For Supply Of Display Counters By Making It At The Site Of Customer). The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 12.10.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.34,12,777/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). Later, An Information Was Received From The Office Of Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That The Assessee Was Engaged In Showing Bogus Purchases & Is A Beneficiary Of Such Transaction. The Ao Has Taken Note Of Fifteen (15) Parties From Whom It Was Alleged

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal, Mumbai vs. National E Assessmet Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 202/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebenudhar Gokulanand Vs. National E Assessment Biswal, Centre, H 302, Room.No 401,2 Nd Shanti Complex, Floor, E Ramp, Saki Vihar Road, Jawaharlal Nehru Powai, Stadium, Mumbai – 400072, New Delhi-110003. Pan/Gir No. : Adopb9106B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Tanmay Phadke.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Naina K Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per The Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["The Learned Commissioner (Appeals)]Despite Concluding That The Agreement For Sale Was Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal., Mumbai. Entered Into On 13.07.2009 (I.E. Prior To 01.04.2017), Failed To Appreciate That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Which Was Inserted Vide Finance Act, 2017 & Made Expressly Applicable From 01.04.2017 Are Not Applicable To The Facts Under Consideration. The Addition Of Rs. 9,88,343/(50% Of Rs. 19,76,686/-) As Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Is Bad In Law & May Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Mr.Tanmay Phadke.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Naina K Kumar.DR
Section 143(1)Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Late Mr. Shankar Mukund Shenai Through His Legal Heir Sangeetha Samir Koppikar, Mum vs. ITO-23(3)(3), Mum

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

ITA 3241/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3241/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम Late Shri Shankar Mukund Income Tax Officer, 23 (3) Shenai (3) Vs. (Through His Legal Heir Room No.108, Sangeetha Samir Koppikar) Matrumandirtardeo, Grant Flat No. 1202, Anish Tower Road Senapatibapat Marg, Next To Mumbai-400 007 Ruparel College Matunga (W) Mumbai-400 018 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जी. आइ. आर. सं/.Pan/Gir No.Aahps4468D अपीलार्थी / Appellant .. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Puru Jain & Shri RajendrakumarFor Respondent: Shri Anil K. Das
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T.VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1035/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Integrity Verification Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1843/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryintegrity Verification Ito, Services Pvt.Ltd., 11, Ward-3(2)(1), बनाम/ Tulsani Chambers, Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg1281A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram ""थ" की ओर से/Respondentby: Shri M.P.Ahuja, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.09.2021 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [ In Short, The “Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. The Appeal Was Originally Heard & Pronounced On 28.04.2022, However, Later On In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Checkmate Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs Cit In Ita Of No.2833/2016 Dated 12.10.2022 Has Been Recalled For Deciding The Issue Of Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. Accordingly, This Appeal Came Before Us For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Shri M.P.Ahuja, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

1)(va) of the Act and therefore, this falls in the nature of incorrect claim of the assessee. In terms of provision of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, the AO can make adjustment for any incorrect claim while processing the return of income under theprovision of section

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 80/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

contested this action of the CPC by contending that such an adjustment made by the CPC is not permissible under the Act as section 143(1) permits adjustment only when there is arithmetical error or incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return whereas in the instant case ... processing return of income without any human intervention, it was found that the assessee's case is covered by sub clause (iv) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Thus, the CPC made adjustment on account of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 79/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

contested this action of the CPC by contending that such an adjustment made by the CPC is not permissible under the Act as section 143(1) permits adjustment only when there is arithmetical error or incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return whereas in the instant case ... processing return of income without any human intervention, it was found that the assessee's case is covered by sub clause (iv) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Thus, the CPC made adjustment on account of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 108/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

automatically attracted. The AO CPC has, in my humble view, acted in accordance with provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act and the adjustment made by the AO CPC in the order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and the subsequent retaining the same

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

automatically attracted. The AO CPC has, in my humble view, acted in accordance with provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act and the adjustment made by the AO CPC in the order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and the subsequent retaining the same

Harshdeep Singh Juneja, Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 106/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 106/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Harshdeep Singh Juneja 21/537, Katora Talab Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupj6153B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/Shri Praveen Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

that the very purpose of affording an opportunity to the assessee as per the mandate of “2nd proviso” to Section 143(1) (a) of the Act would be rendered as redundant and otiose in case the response filed by an assessee was not to be considered. Our attention was drawn ... proviso” to Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, wherein the same specifically provides that the response received from the assessee to the proposed adjustment to his returned income was mandatorily to be considered before proceeding any further and making any such adjustment. It was, thus, the claim

Garuda Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 133/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 133/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Garuda Vyapaar Private Limited G-02, Maruti Lifestyle, Kota, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaccg7149C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 135/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of The Filing Of Return During The Year. 2. That The Petitioner Raves To Add, Alter Or Amend All Or Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Rathore (C.A.)For Respondent: None a
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

disallowance made by the CPC Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1(a) of the Act and,therefore, cannot be sustained. 7. We have carefully perused the decision of the co- ordinate bench in the case ... sucha situation, cannot be reason enough to disregard the binding views of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Court. To that extent, the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) must be read down. What essentially follows is the adjustments under section 143(1)(a) in respect of” disallowance of expenditure indicated

Braham Parkash Yadav, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 439/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made by the CPC Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1(a) of the Act and,therefore, cannot be sustained. 7. We have carefully perused the decision of the co- ordinate bench in the case ... sucha situation, cannot be reason enough to disregard the binding views of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Court. To that extent, the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) must be read down. What essentially follows is the adjustments under section 143(1)(a) in respect of” disallowance of expenditure indicated

Sodhani Sweet Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 383/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Khandelwal (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

Arif Noormohammed Basathia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-31(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 852/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sarif Noor Mohammed Ito-31(1)(2), Basathia,Gala No.198, Pratyakhakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Ghaswala Compound, Bkc, Bandra East, Vs. Oshiwara, Jogeshwari, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400102. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aevpb4123N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Ms.Neelam Jadhav.Ar अपीलाथी ओर से / Appellant By : Mr.Anil Gupta.Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By :

For Appellant: Mr.Anil Gupta.DR
Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Fancy Diamonds India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. N F Ass C / DCIT-5(1)(1) (Current Juridiction), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 728/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sfancy Diamonds India Nfassc/Dcit-5(1)(1), Pvt.Ltd., 52, Sidhpura Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Industrial Estate, 2Nd M.K.Road, Vs. Floor, Gaik Wadi, Mumbai-400020. S V Road, Goregaon, Mumbai-400062. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf3325J (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Smt.Vranda U Matkarni.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 23/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld.Cit Erred In Confirming Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Fancy Diamonds India Pvt.Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Vranda U Matkarni.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Cir-4(1)(1), Mum vs. M/S Safal Resorts P Ltd (Now Merged With M/S. Azura Projects P Ltd), Thane

ITA 69/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Kuldip Singh & Shri Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant M/S. Safal Resorts Pvt. Ltd Commissioner Of Income (Now Merged With M/S. Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Azura Projects Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai Vs. 003, C-17, Anuroop Chs Ltd, Sector-11, Shanti Nagar, Mira Road (East), Thane, Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aahcs4030Q

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Catwalk Worldwide Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Direcotr of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 685/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2019-20 Catwalk Worldwide Acit, Pvt Ltd, Cpc, Bangalore Unit No. 405-408, Tanti A Jogani Industrial Premises, Vs. Jr Boricha Marg, Sitaram Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc1276B

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora & Moksha MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. K. C. Selvamani, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) contended that disallowing employees' contribution to PF & ESIC while processing the return under section 143(1) is against the provision of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit of prima-facie adjustment, hence liable to be allowed