← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1651/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

among them is that the income assessed is greater than the income tax return processed under clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 143(1) of the Act. In simple term, the clause deals with the situation that result in addition in assessments. 6.5.3 The question of misreporting will ... papers and Assessing Officer completed assessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was not greater than income determined in return processed under section 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income as per provisions of section 270A(2)and (3) and, thus, penalty under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Chennai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1650/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

among them is that the income assessed is greater than the income tax return processed under clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 143(1) of the Act. In simple term, the clause deals with the situation that result in addition in assessments. 6.5.3 The question of misreporting will ... papers and Assessing Officer completed assessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was not greater than income determined in return processed under section 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income as per provisions of section 270A(2)and (3) and, thus, penalty under section

Vijayaraghavan Sundararaman, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1818/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Balani Vaidyanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment year : 2022-23 Vijayaraghavan

Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) P. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(2), Bangaluru

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Adajan vs. Shivlal Shamjibhai Ponkia, City Light Road, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 817/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 &2 - Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 30/03/2016 declaring total income of Rs.5,41,600/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). Subsequently, in the case of assessee, information was received from the Investigation Wing that

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. Bhanubhai Ranchhodbhai Asodaria, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1003/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 &2 - Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 30/03/2016 declaring total income of Rs.5,41,600/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). Subsequently, in the case of assessee, information was received from the Investigation Wing that

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Anavil Business Centre, Hazira Raod vs. Sharmishthaben Shivlal Ponkia, Umra, Bharthana B.O, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1002/SRT/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 &2 - Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 30/03/2016 declaring total income of Rs.5,41,600/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). Subsequently, in the case of assessee, information was received from the Investigation Wing that

Medip Healthtech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1069/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 M/S.Medip Healthtech Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Sf-210, Devashish Business Park Vs. Cir.2(1)(1) Nr.Popular Domeinn, Satellite Vejalpur Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aakcm 0291 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Vinata Bhura, Ar Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 30Section 43B

Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)”], dated 06.03.2025, for the Assessment Year 2020–21, against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 11.10.2021. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The assessee filed ... which was duly reflected in Part A–GEN of ITR-6. 2 The return was processed by the CPC, Bengaluru, under section 143(1) on 11.10.2021. 2.2 While processing the return, the CPC made the following adjustments: Particular As per As per 143(1) Difference / Remarks Return (Rs.) (Rs.) Total

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 759/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 12Section 147Section 263

power and should not be lightly exercised. It certainly cannot be invoked casually or mechanically. (viii) If the original assessment is processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not Section 143(3) of the Act, the proviso to Section 147 will not apply. In other words, although

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 758/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 12Section 147Section 263

invoked casually or mechanically. ITA Nos. 338, 339, 758 & 759/Ahd/2024 [Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai] - 6 – (viii) If the original assessment is processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not Section 143(3) of the Act, the proviso to Section 147 will not apply. In other words, although

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Int.Tax., Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 339/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 12Section 147Section 263

invoked casually or mechanically. ITA Nos. 338, 339, 758 & 759/Ahd/2024 [Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai] - 6 – (viii) If the original assessment is processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not Section 143(3) of the Act, the proviso to Section 147 will not apply. In other words, although

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Int.Tax., Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 338/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 12Section 147Section 263

invoked casually or mechanically. ITA Nos. 338, 339, 758 & 759/Ahd/2024 [Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai] - 6 – (viii) If the original assessment is processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and not Section 143(3) of the Act, the proviso to Section 147 will not apply. In other words, although

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M Surana &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Rajesh Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M Surana &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA

M.A. Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Pradip

Razak Rowther Mohamed Saleem, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 1731/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1731/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Razak Rowther Mohamed Saleem, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 29A, Manthinapalli Vasal Street, Ward 1, Batlagundu Road, Begampur, Dindigul. Dindigul 624 002. [Pan:Acfpm9762L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidya, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2

admitting total income of ₹.7,65,160/- and agricultural income of ₹.85,84,619/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” in short]. The case was subsequently selected for "Limited scrutiny" under CASS and notice under section 143

Income-Tax Officer (Exemption)-2(3), Mumbai, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4573/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

earlier, the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 02.04.2009, which was processed and intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 21.01.2011. Thus, there was no assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee, while filing the petition

Pratima Hitesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 232/MUM/2025[1992-1993]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 1992-1993

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 1992-1993 Pratima Hitesh Mehta Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 32, Madhuli Apartment, Income-Tax, Cc -4(1), 3Rd Floor, Dr. A.B Road, Worli, Mumbai Mumbai - 400018 [Pan: Abnpm8226G] Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh, Advocates Respondent By : Dr. P. Daniel (Special Counsel For Dept.) Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-52, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070774879(1), Dated 29.11.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Cc-4(1), Mumbai, U/S. 144 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 19.07.2024 For Assessment Year 1992-93. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Partly Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act Dated 19.07.2024. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Which Is Time Barred & Hence Void.

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah and Ms. Mitali Parekh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Special Counsel for Dept.)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 220Section 234D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6857/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270ASection 40

contended that there is an error in computation of assessed income which has been stated that as per the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, no adjustment was made to the returned income of INR 27,63,46,470. However, the assessment order incorrectly mentions the income ... computed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act as INR 29,63,00,220 to which the adjustments made in assessment order (of INR 4,44,95,50,224) are added, to take the assessed income to INR 474,58,50,440 (instead

Assystem Engineering Amd Operation Services, France vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3392/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Assystem Engineering & Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Operation Services Income Tax Circle-1(1) (1) Tour Egee 9-11 Allee De International Taxation Larche Courbevoie France- 92400 Pan No. Aajca2418E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH