← 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)

The Pr. CIT Mumbai City-19, Mumbai vs. Shri Champaklal M. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

ITA 2253/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 148

assessment as stipulated under Section 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. In view of the above, provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case ... been passed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has proceeded on erroneous factual basis that the return of income was only processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. That displays total non application of mind. In fact, petitioner's allegations that Respondent No.1 has sought to re-open the assessment

Jagmohan Singh Arora, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.4 raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 7196/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vranda U Matkarni- Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

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

Arya Samaj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 984/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Arya Samaj, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Ward - 1, No.804/15, Swamy Shraddhanand Bhavan, Bengaluru. Vishveshvarapuram, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aacta 0479 K Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sudheendra B. R, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra B. R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234F

u/s.143(1) of the Act, the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) contending that while processing return, the CPC cannot issue intimation under section 143(1) denying benefit of deduction under section 11 of the Act. The First Appellate Authority however dismissed the appeal of the Assessee for non-prosecution

ITO 30 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Blossom Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the both appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 62/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito 30(1)(1) Vs. M/S Blossom Room No. 436, 4Th Floor Developers Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Survey No. 273, Village G Block, Bandra(East) Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Mumbai – 400051. Malad (E), Mumbai – 400097. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent M/S Blossom Vs. Ito 30(1)(1) Developers Room No. 436, 4Th Survey No. 273, Village Floor Dindoshi, Pathanwadi Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Malad (E), G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400097. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfb6147Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shyam C. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, SR. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

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

Aadi Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

ITA 1675/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

M/S. IV Sanctum, Bengaluru vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 986/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Iv Sanctum, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, #18/19, 4Th Cross, 5Th Main, Cpc, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 009. Pan : Aawfm 3697 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 29.09.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Making A Disallowance On Delayed Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Esi & Pf Of Rs.4,94,192/- Made By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. On The Above Issue, It Is Not Disputed That As Per The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Rendered In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs Cit-1 In Civil Appeal 2833/2016 Vide Its Judgment Dated 12 October 2022 Decided The Issue On Allowability/Treatment Of ‘Delayed’ Employee Pf Contribution Payment In Hands Of Assessee Under Provisions Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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. Learned Counsel for the assessee firstly pointed out that as per the proviso to section 143(1 ... made only after due intimation to the assessee. Learned Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 1.5.2020, it has been mentioned that there was a communication sent by email to the assessee before making the impugned disallowance

Nalina Dyave Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 685/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda, Vs. The Adit, #129/25, Shree Paada, Cpc, Sanjeev Shetty Layout, Bidadi, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 109. Pan : Aqcpn 0102 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.06.2022 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Making A Disallowance On Delayed Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Esi & Pf Of Rs.14,58,631/- Made By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. On The Above Issue, It Is Not Disputed That As Per The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Rendered In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs Cit-1 In Civil Appeal 2833/2016 Vide Its Judgment Dated 12 October 2022 Decided The Issue On Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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. Learned Counsel for the assessee firstly pointed out that as per the proviso to section 143(1 ... after due intimation to the assessee. Learned Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that in page 6 of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 14.12.2020, it has Page 3 of 6 been mentioned that there was a communication dated 17.11.2020 sent by email

Bholanath Precision Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 1997/MUM/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nihar A. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [„learned CIT(A)‟], which in turn arose from the intimation dated 18/12/2021, issued under section 143(1), for the assessment year 2020–21. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: Bholanath Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1997/Mum./2022 ... income on 15/01/2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 20,71,870. The Assessing Officer (‘AO‟) vide intimation dated 18/12/2021 issued under section 143(1) of the Act determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 23,01,890, inter-alia, after making certain adjustments. Further, the AO computed

Diya International, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1699/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1699/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Diya International बिधम/ National Faceless Appeal 2501, Panchratna, Opera Centre Vs. House, Mumbai-400004. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval JariwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

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

Lotus Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2476/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Lotus Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Cc 8(1), 1St Floor, B&C Block, Mumbai – 400 013. Trade Link, E-Wing, Kamala Mill Compounds, Sb Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfl7079F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Viraaj Bhate.Ar Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha.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)-18, Mumbai Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Viraaj Bhate.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 199Section 205

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

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1849/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Central Circle – 1(2) Constructions Pvt Ltd 906, 9Th Floor, Pratishta 511, Dalmal Towers, Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg 211, Nariman Point, (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach0409H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri K Gopal Sr. Adv & Shri Om Kandalkar, Adv Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Tejinder Pal SinghFor Respondent: Shri K Gopal Sr. Adv and Shri Om Kandalkar, Adv
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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

Aakash Films Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -50, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1762/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

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

Aachman Vanijya Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 8(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1511/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aachman Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 8(4) Main Building, 2Nd Floor 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Kolkata, West Bengal-700001 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aacca5165H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Rajesh Suresh Vernekar, Davangere vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Davangere

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed and copy of the order should be placed in all the respective files

ITA 991/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Shantha Veeranna Abbigeri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271FSection 274Section 274FSection 275(1)(c)

07/09/2015 04/07/2016 3,03,200/- 3760/- 2015-16 4. The above returns filed by the assessee were processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO noted that the assessee has committed default by filling his income tax return as per section 139(1) and filled return ... 1)(c) of the Act. He also ITA Nos.991 to 994/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 7 submitted that while the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, no penalty notice was issued to the assessee and it was issued on 10.10.2017, which is invalid notice. Therefore, the penalty

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 322/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.322/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Trianz Holdings Private The Additional /Dy./ Limited No.165/2, 6Th Floor Addl/Jt.Commissioner Of V. Kalyani Magnum, Doraisani Palya Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi Iim Post, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Tikona Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 1117/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1117/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tikona Trust बिधम/ Assistant Director Of 3A, 3Rd Floor Corpora, Lbs Marg Income Tax, Cpc Vs. Bhandup West, Cpc, Bangaluru, Mumbai-400078 Karnataka- 560500

For Appellant: Shri .Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri. V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 234BSection 41Section 41(1)

ITA NO. 1117/MUM/2022 AY- 2018-19 Tikona Trust, Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI

DCIT, Corporate Cirlce - 3 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 704/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.704/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Income Tax, Plot No. A-30, D-5, Phase Ii, Corporate Circle – 3(2), Zone-B, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 045. [Pan: Aaaca9284H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, Dated 09.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 78 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234C

events that have transpired in this case. The Assessee filed a return of income pursuant to which, an intimation dated 01.12.1998 under section 143(1) (a) of the Act was issued. The provisions of Section 143(2) require that if the Assessing Officer considered it necessary or expedient to ensure ... income from assessment. Reasons must have a link with the formation of the belief.’ 12. If the Assessing Officer, after issuing intimation u/s. section 143(1) does not to issue a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act to initiate proceedings for scrutiny of the return of income, the obvious conclusion

Smt. Krishnaiah Ranganayaki, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 618/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 618/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Krishnaiah Ranganayaki, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 17, Seetharam Nagar, Ward 1, Cuddalore 607 001. Cuddalore. [Pan:Aewpr9630P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Prabhakar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 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), Puducherry, Dated 20.02.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 37 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” in short] in her return of the income. 4. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 21.03.2018 for reopening of assessment ... available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was reopened for the following reasons: “During the F.Y. 2010-11, the assessee along with

Pooja Dharamvir Thakur, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1901/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1901/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Pooja Dharamvir Thakur बिधम/ Ito-24(3)(3) Pooja Dharamvir Thakur, 701 Piramal Chambers Vs. 32, Wing 1B, Winderemere Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- Oshiwara New Link Road, 400012. Near Green Park Andheri. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adfpt6305H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/11/2022 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)-49, Mumbai Dated 28.06.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11 Lakhs U/S 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY

Eluppai Ramanathan Sridhar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 936/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: PendingITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Swaminathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य