← 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)

Harishkumar Ramniklal Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle - 1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 437/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.437/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Harishkumar Ramniklal Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) 19, Jivan Vikas Society, B/H Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Business Vs. Gokulam Diary, Athwalines, Surat- Centre, Adajan, Nr. Gujrat Gas 395004 Circle, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavpp 6962 F (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tinish R Modi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Viniod Kumar– Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं

Bihani Constructions Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 19/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.19/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Bihani Constructions (P) Ltd. 64/167, Heera Path, VT Road Mansarovar, Jaipur 302 020 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAECB 8359 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)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

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 350/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

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

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

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

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 200/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Sivira Organiks P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-13(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 83/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.83/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sivira Organiks Pvt. Ltd. बिधम Income Tax Officer, 13 113, Matermind-I, Aarey (2) (2) Vs. Milk Colony, Goregaon(E) Room No.147, 1St Floor, Mumbai-400 063 Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जी. आइ. आर. सं/.Pan/Gir No: .Aamcs2596J अपीलार्थी / Appellant .. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Smt Lavanya RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Anil K.Das
Section 143(1)

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

Shreeji Trans Logistics Ltd., Thane vs. CIT (A), CPC, Banglore

In the result, th same. In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are e grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed

ITA 388/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Ita No. 388 To 390/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2019-2020 Shreeji Translogistics Ltd., Cit(Appeals), Plot No. 107, Shreeji Krupa, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Sector 19-C, Phase-Ii Vashi, Centre, Thane-400705 Delhi. Pan No. Aaecs 3602 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Anil Sant, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)

considering objections/replies filed by the Shreeji Translogistics Ltd.. Shreeji Translogistics Ltd. Appellant Company about non-applicability of provisions of of provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act & without recording any section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act & without recording any section 143(1 ... framed assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act and under section 143(3) of the Act and not under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. In other words, the not under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. In other words, the not under

M/S Guruji Infrastruture Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 343/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.343/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2020-21) M/S. Guruji Infrastructure बिधम/ Adit, Cpc Pvt. Ltd Banglore. Vs. 33, Plot 1088 Suraj Plaza, ‘A’ Wing, Chandulal Park, Station Rd Bhayandar (W), Thane-401101. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg3499G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 19.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Action Of The Cpc Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Disallowing Rs.1,47,39,619/- Claimed Towards Employees Contribution Towards Provident Fund/Esic. 3. Fact In Brief Are That The Assessee Company Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 24.02.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,38,870/-. & Thereafter, It Received Intimation Dated 23.012.2021 From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Wherein An Amount Of Rs.1,47,39,619/- Was Disallowed On Account Of Late Deposit Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esic In The Relevant Funds Within

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

The Master Polishers, Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Master Polishers, Assistant Director Of Income S-02, Suchita Chs Ltd., Kalina Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Vs. Church Cross Road, Santacruz 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. East, 48/1 48/2, Mumbai-400029. Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Rd, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 100. Pan No. Aahft 5749 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil Hirawat, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Hirawat, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

Ceat Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 159/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhceat Employees Co- Vs. Nfac Operative Credit Society Income Tax Officer Ltd., Ground Floor, Cpb Bangalore C/O Ceat Ltd. Bhandup Village Road, Bhandup West Mumbai – 400078 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaac0547M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shekhar Patwardhan Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 21.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.11.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also In Law The Learned Cit Appeals Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Deduction Claimed By The Appellant U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) 80P(2)(D) To The Tune Of Rs.1014680/- Though The Appellant Is Very Much Entitled For The Same 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend & Modify The Aforesaid Grounds Of Appeal At Or Any Time Before The Hearing As May Be Advised From Time To Time.” 2. The Fact In Brief Is That Assesse Is A Cooperative Society Carrying On The Business Of Giving Credit Facilities To Its Members For The Last Several Years. The Assessee Has Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total

For Appellant: Shekhar PatwardhanFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

P a g e | 1 Ceat Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Spick-N-Span Services, Mum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(3)(1) Erstwhile Ward-27(3)(3), Mum

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 14/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.14/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.15/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Spick-N-Span Services बिधम/ Income Tax Officer Ward- 41(3)(1) (Erstwhile 409, 4Th Floor, Sej Plaza, Vs. Marve Road Malad (W) Ward- 27(3)(3) Mumbai- 400064 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- 400051 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs2733G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar Das. Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 16.11.2022 For Ay 2011-12 & Ay 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 48,19,696/- For The Ay 2011-12 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Herein After ‘The Act’) & Rs. 1,48,61,729/- (Ay 2018- 19) U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Both On Account Of Disallowance Of Employees Contribution Of Provident Fund & Esic U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act. Since, The Issue

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das. Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)

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

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 109/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No. 109/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Wanbury Limited बिधम / Adit, Cpc 10Th Floor, Section 30- 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Vs. No 48/1 48/2, A Bsel Tech Park, B Beratenaagrahareabegur, Wing, Opp. Vashi Hosur Rd, Uttarahallihobli, Railway Station, Vashi Bengaluru 560100 Mumbai 400705 स्थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp5939P (अपीलाथी .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 30Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

M/S. Super Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1949/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 1949 & 1950/Mum/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-2020 M/S Super Tiles & Marbles National Faceless Appeal Pvt. Ltd, Centre (Nfac) Vs. 904 Marathon Icon, Opposite Mararshi Karve Road, New Peninsula Corporate Park, Off Marine Lines, Churchgate, Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel-West, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacs 9361 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raman Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Raman Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 14Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

Institute of Hotel Management Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition, Hajipur vs. ACIT, Exemption Circle, Patna

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

ITA 73/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH: PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri

Prime Comfort Porducts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

disallowance. 5. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the disallowance cannot be made by way of adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act as it is not covered under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. In this context, he relied upon a decision ... upheld. In so far as the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that such adjustment is not contemplated under Section 143(1)(a) (iv) of the Act, I am unable to accept the contention in view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, in case of Savleen Kour

Rajkamal Overseas, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 38/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pratap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40Section 40b

filed return of income declaring income at ‘Nil’ along with the tax audit report. The return filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 25.11.2021 wherein addition/disallowance of partners remuneration amounting to Rs.10,50,000/- was made while I.T.A No.38/Del/2023 2 processing the return ... Against the adjustment so made, the assessee e-filed application under Section 154 dated 17.11.2022 seeking rectification of mistake while processing intimation under Section 143(1) and reversal of the disallowance. The rectification under Section 154 was however passed by the AO (CPC) reiterating the adjustments and without any relief

Arvind Kumar Agarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-18(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 917/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: C. A
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

after claiming deduction of Rs.75,10,646/- under section 10AA of the Act. The return was processed by CPC, Bangalore, under section 143(1) of the Act, on 12.02.2020 denying the deduction claimed under section 10AA of the Act for not filing return of income within the due date specified

Rajhans Infratech Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-21(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, decided in favour of the assessee. Consequently, appeal of assessee is allowed and impugned addition is deleted

ITA 2153/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2153/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, M-32, 2Nd Floor, Gk-1, Circle-21(2) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacd0055F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Vasant Valley Aster Tower Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ytd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 30(2)(7), Mumbai

Accordingly, disallowance of INR 24,35,082/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) is deleted and Ground No.1 raised by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 433/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri J.P. PurohitFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29/11/2019

Late Jitender Sapra (Through Wife Anjali Sapra), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 50(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 159Section 162Section 2(31)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 271B

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R