← 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)

Padmanabhan, Tirupur vs. CIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 738/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह

Mr Ashok Madhav Rao, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1288/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Mr. Ashok Madhav Rao Centralized Processing Flat No. 103, Dheeraj Centre, Dashan 2, Kokan Nagar, Vs. Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai- Income Tax Department, 400 060 Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 500 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afirp8784B Assessee By : Ketan Ved Revenue By : Shri Ujjawal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2022

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan SR AR
Section 143(1)Section 90

26th March, 2022 for A.Y. 2018-19, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 13th January, 2021 passed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Central Processing Centre for not granting foreign tax credit ... Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to ₹6,51,760/-. The same was denied to the assessee as per assessment order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 13th January, 2021. 04. The assessee aggrieved with the same preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned

ITO - 31(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. Gratuity, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the ld

ITA 481/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Johnson & Johnson Ltd. Gratuity Ito-3(2)(1) 501, Areana Space, Off Jvlr, Room No – 615, 6Th Floor, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Vs. Jogeshwar East, East, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 060 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaaj1600Q Assessee By : Shri M P Lohia Revenue By : Shri Achal Sharma Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri M P LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10(25)(iv)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM Johnson

M/S. Automac Diesels, Huballi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 338/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

whether it was within the powers of the Revenue authorities to make the disallowance while electronically processing the return of income under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. She further submitted that the only prime facie arithmetical mistakes has be rectified and referred to the Explanation of the section ... relevant para is as under: _ In this case the assessee filed his return of income belatedly and return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act by observing that “in schedule Chapter VI-A, under Part-C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in Sl.No. 2.1 deduction

Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 316/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, C/O. Subash Agrawal & Vs Kolkata Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700069 [Pan : Aaacw2197D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16 /12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Though The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred, However, In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of 2021 In Smw(C) No. 3 Of 2020, The Period Of Filing Appeal During The Covid-19 Pandemic Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Counting The Limitation Period. In View Of This, The Appeal Is Treated As Filed Within The Limitation Period.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE

Crawley & Ray Founders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, CPC, Banlaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Mallick, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA आयकरअपीलीयअधीकरण, "ायपीठ “C”कोलकाता, BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND

Grip Strapping Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

date as per relevant Act, but before the due date to file returns of income. 3. Such an order dated 13/11/2019 passed under section 143(1) of the Act making such a disallowance also was challenged before the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) considered the issue in the light ... AY.2019-20) wherein contrary views are taken in case where the disallowance under section 36(iv)(a) was made while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. He submitted that as has been held in P.V. George v. State of Kerala, (2007) 3 SCC 557, the law declared

Narendra Thacker, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2490/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2490/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Narendra Thacker बिधम/ Ito-27(2)(4) 303-B Wing Bellona Bldg, Tower No.6, Fourth Floor, Vs. 90 Ft Road, Pant Nagar, Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai- Complex, Vashi, Navi 400075. Mumbai-4000703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt1799E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2022 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 27.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. However, On Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, It Is Noted That The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao In Not Giving Proper Opportunity Before Making An Addition Of Rs.4,25,000/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar
Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2490/Mum/2022

K H & Associates, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

ITA 2241/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194Section 44A

fact that the said receipts were suo- motto offered for tax by appellant while filing its return of Income. b) Erred in Invoking Section 143(1) all-together. c) Without prejudice to above, erred in Taxing same gross receipts of Rs.8,35,111/-, again u/s 44ADA, which appellant has already ... taxation under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The assessee’s return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore by taxing the same gross receipt of Rs.8,35,111/- twice while processing the return

Ankur Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range 9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3326/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleankur Energy; Resources Vs. Dcit, Range 9(1)(2) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai – 400020. Plot No. 115/It-03, Raj Chambers, Rk Parmhans, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaica9929M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Yogesh Joigode.Ar Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh Joigode.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

M/S. Aconite Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2106/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial

Galla Ravindranath HUF, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward -2, Anantapur

ITA 435/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 45Section 47(2)

Assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 25/05/2017 admitting NIL income, and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Subsequently, the assessment was re-opened and according to the learned Assessing Officer

Goldstone Trading Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -9 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2043/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2006-07
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 2043/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2006-07) Vs. DCIT

M/S. Ramniklal Sivji Savla, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-30, Mumbai

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

ITA 1261/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(1)Section 148

return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 2,80,938/-. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer subsequently received information from the investigation wing that a scam has been unearthed by the Sales tax department

M/S. About U Fashions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 2150/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 14ASection 68

this issue and perused the record. The return of income filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act for the reason that

M/S. Garuda Security Services, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1052/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

no.1785/Mum./ 2021, vide order dated 27th April 2022, while deleting the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) made vide intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, observed as under: “2. The issue in appeal lies in a very narrow compass of common material facts. While processing the income ... total of such, as perceived by the tax auditor, delayed payments, aggregating to Rs 4,24,634 ,were sought to be disallowed under section 143(1). When the assessee was put to notice, by the Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as „the Assessing Officer

M/S. Garuda Security Services, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1051/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

no.1785/Mum./ 2021, vide order dated 27th April 2022, while deleting the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) made vide intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, observed as under: “2. The issue in appeal lies in a very narrow compass of common material facts. While processing the income ... total of such, as perceived by the tax auditor, delayed payments, aggregating to Rs 4,24,634 ,were sought to be disallowed under section 143(1). When the assessee was put to notice, by the Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as „the Assessing Officer

Farida Shoes Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 849/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.849/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Farida Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner No. 151/4, Mount Poonamallee Road, Of Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai [Pan:Aaacf0496Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.10.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 28.11.2019 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.16,50,00,300/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

declaring total income of ₹.16,50,00,300/-. The return filed by the assessee was 2 I.T.A. No. 849/Chny/22 processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] and intimation was issued on 06.07.2020 by CPC, Bengaluru arriving a total taxable income ... materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the CPC, Bengaluru, while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act, disallowed the delayed remittance of PF contribution. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, the assessee has submitted that

Sgn Distributors India, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 946/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesgn Distributors Vs. Ito – 23(3)(3) 105, Veena Beena Mumbai-400021. Shopping Centre, Opp Bandra Rly Stn, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpr3175L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vimal Punmiya.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER SGN Distributors Vs. ITO

Sheetal Clothing Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1109/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee on 24.11.2016. It was submitted that the assessments of A.Y. 2011-12 and 2013-14 were completed by processing return under section 143(1) and further the time limit for issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act has expired for these two years much prior