← 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)

K P R Cars Private Limited, Mysore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 91/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K P R Cars Private Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of No. 162, New Bannimantap Income Tax Extn., Mandi Mohalla Vs. Centralised Processing Mysore 570021 Centre Pan No : Aaeck3438R Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hemant Pai, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 .05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 12/11/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi Of Rs.21,63,054/- Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 28.03.2019. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs. 21,63,054/- Was Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution M/S. Kpr Cars Private. Ltd. Page 2 To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018

M/S. Surya Enterprise, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 310/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Surya Enterprise Assistant Director Of No. 50, Residency Road Income Tax Bangalore 560025 Vs. Central Processing Unit Pan No : Bangalore Aavfs2416H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 03/12/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi Of Rs.1,56,385/- Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019

Gayathri Papanna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 280/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2019-20 Gayathri Papanna Deputy Commissioner Of #67 4Th Cross, 2Nd Main Income Tax Hosahalli Centralised Processing Centre Vs. Vijayanagar Bangalore Bengaluru 560040 Pan No : Brypp3124J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. R.E. Balasubramaniam, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 03/12/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.11,20,008/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 On 13.10.2019. The Return Of Income Wasprocessed U/S 143(1) Of The Ac, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.11,20,008/- Was Made U/S Gayathri Papanna Page 2 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Shri. R.E. Balasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AssessmentYear:2019-20

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 237/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.236 & 237/Bang/2022

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 236/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.236 & 237/Bang/2022

M N Dastur & Company Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 119/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194JSection 199

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

M N Dastur & Company Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 118/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194JSection 199

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 712/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions The Income Tax Officer Sy. No. 151, 11Th Main Road Ward – 6(2)(1) Peenya Indl. Area, 3Rd Phase Bengaluru Vs. Laggere Village Bengaluru 560058 Pan No : Abyfs6836P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 30/09/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.3,75,531/-, Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 28.03.2019. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.7,65,472/- Was Made U/S M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions Page 2 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts. The Assessee Filed A Rectification Petition Objecting To The Disallowance Made & In The Rectification Order, The Addition Was Sustained To The Extent Of Rs.3,75,531/-.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018

M/S. Meremma Basavaraj Belli, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalure

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 685/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 22.11.2021. 4. When this appeal came up for hearing ... 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

Axis Carriers and Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 25.03.2022. 3. When this appeal came up for hearing ... 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

Shri Tejindersingh S Anand, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 12.03.2022. 4. When this appeal came up for hearing ... 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

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 429/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 23.12.2021. 4. When this appeal came up for hearing ... 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

Chandresh Cabels Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 418/MUM/2022[2019-202]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-202

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 16.11.2021. Chandresh Cables Ltd. ITA No.418/Mum./2022 5. When this ... 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

Brillpharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 414/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi TamhankarFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 13.11.2021. 4. When this appeal came up for hearing ... 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

Hbn Network Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Scheme (ESIC) under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while possessing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 15/12/2021. 3. The brief facts of the case ... delayed payment towards employee’s contribution to PF and ESIC. 4. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act determining total income of Rs. 10,94,630, inter- alia, after again disallowing Rs. 10,94,630 under section 36(1

M/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 15.12.2021. 3. When this appeal came up for hearing ... 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

Shiv Sagar Restaurant Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2442/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshiv Sagar Restaurant Vs. A.O.,Cpc Pvt Ltd,Dharam Prem Bangalore, Apartments,Nehru Road, Karnataka-560500 Vile Parle(East) Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs1285M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jigar Sangani.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Samruddhi Hande.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter ‘The Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Jigar Sangani.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Samruddhi Hande.DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

report but not taking into account in the computation of total income in the return” as is sine qua non for disallowance of Section 143(1)(a)(iv). When the due date under Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) is judicially held to be not decisive for determining the disallowance ... detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in the course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts

Atlas Castalloy Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1) (2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1505/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

NFAC) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the intimation/order, dated 14.05.2019, issued/passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟]. 2. Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA. No. 1505/Mum/2021 ... income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of INR 1,73,54,730/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC. A disallowance of INR 1,05,000/- was made under Section

M/S. Modus Information Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 210/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: ---- None ----For Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Gmr Highways Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 495/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

allowed the ground of appeal with the observation on charging of interest under Section 234B from the date of passing the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act as under : 6.7.1 In this regard the appellant in the written submissions has contended that the Appellant has filed the return ... applicable prior to June 1st 2015 interest under section 234B is to be charged from the date of passing of intimation under section 143(1). Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to levy interest under section 234B from the date of passing of intimation under section 143(1). This ground