← All Phrases

“Section 139(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(1)7,818 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)

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.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Judgments citing Section 139(1)

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)

amounts to the Government account within the previous year and well before the due date of filing of return of income prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, there is no justification in disallowing the same. 5. When the matter is called, neither the assessee nor any authorised representative

M/S Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Veto Switchgears Vs. Acit, 13(3)(2) & Cables Limited Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashtra Maharishi Karve Road, 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccv4990K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

ITA No.2634/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 1 M/s Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd Vs ACIT, 13(3)(2) IN THE INCOME

Viveck Mathreja, Mumbai vs. ACIT National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalviveck Mathreja Vs. Acit, National Face Less Plot No. 5, Trishul Assessment Centre Hatkesh Co-Op, Hsg.Sty, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Road No. 6, Jvpd, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Ville Parle (W), Complex, Bandra Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai - 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Acxpm8278M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N.R. AggarwalFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

given under Sec. 22(1)/22(2)34 of the Indian Income Tax Act,1922 or which you were required to furnish under Section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ……………dated ……or have without reasonable cause failed ... furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. Have concealed the particulars of your Income or …………………furnish Inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby required to appear before me at 11.00 A.M. on 24.03.2014 and show cause

Capco Finance & Investment Private Ltd (Stuck Off), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2538/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Manish ShethFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271FSection 69A

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore vs. Mr. Shorff Krishnarajasetty Satheesha, Kodagu

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

ITA 997/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153C

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

Sushil Kumar Paul, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Siliguri

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

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 271A

given under section 22(1)/22(2)/34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/ 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, No………….. dated………. Or have without reasonable cause failed ... furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under Section 22(4)/ 23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1

Arvind Mohanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-3, Thane

In the result, we quash the reassessment initiation

ITA 1798/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Arvind Mohanlal Jain Cit(A)-3 Flat No.304, Room No-30, D-Wing, Vishwanath Nagar, B-Wing, Asher It Park, Vs. Gandhi Chowk, Wagle Industrial Estate, Kulgaon, Badlapur (E) Thane 400 604 Mumbai-421 503 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpj2456J

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan, SR AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

27th March, 2015. Necessary notices were issued in response to which assessee reiterated by letter dated 23rd February, 2016, return filed under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee was asked to explain the deposit of ₹30 lacs in cash in his bank account

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)

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

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)

long as the payments towards provident fund dues are made before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1), even beyond the permissible time limit under the relevant statute under which payment is made, the payments so made are deductible in the computation ... payments made beyond the due date under the relevant statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return under section 139(1) cannot attract the disallowance for the reason of delay. Once again learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the coordinate

Shri Bhanwarlal M. Harsh, Thane vs. Dy CIT CC-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Bhanwarlal M Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) A/2, 406, Runwal Plaza, Air India Building Nr. Koresh India Vartak Nariman Point, Nagar, Thane (West) Mumbai - 400021 400606 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacph5666F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Manoj MundraFor Respondent: J. Saravanan
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

given under section 2(1)/22(2) 34 of the Indian Income- tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, No…………………………..dated…………. or have without reasonable cause failed ... furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice.  have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143

Sudheendra Phani Kumar Bommathpalli, Bangalore vs. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

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

ITA 1042/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Navneet S Kini, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

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

Sudheendra Phani Kumar Bommathpalli, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre

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

ITA 1041/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Navneet S Kini, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

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

Rocksalt Interactive Games Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 263Section 72Section 73Section 73ASection 74Section 74ASection 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET

Joint CIT (OSD) Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Nabendu Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 875/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 875/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Nabendu Engineering Jcit (Osd), Cen. Cir-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, 902, Pratistha बिधम/ 85, Podar Centre, Parel Bhavan, Old Cgo Post Office Lane, Opp. Vs. Bldg.(Annex), M. K. Road, Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaecn2103N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr Shri Siddharth Kothari, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C For Ay 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM, & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं

M/S. Simtools Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7(3) ( Earstwhile DCIT- Cent. Cir-42), Mumbai

The appeal are allowed

ITA 1573/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 7(3), M/S Simtools Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai (Erstwhile Dcit- 412, Floor-4, 17G, Central Circle – 42) Vardhaman Chamber, Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Cawasji Patel Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, Horniman Circle, Fort, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1757M Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Rohit Infra Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

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

ITA 2437/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2437/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Rohit Infra Projects Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2 Ltd. B, Wing, Ashar I. T. Park, Vs. A-1/103, Orchid Plaza, R. Wagle Estate, Thane. T. Road, Dahisar, Mumbai- 400068. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr4744C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2022 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)-11, Pune Dated 31.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Assessee Had Filed The Revised Return Of Income For Ay. 2013-14 On 19.03.2015 Which Has Not Been Taken Into Consideration By The Ao, Before Framing The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 27.03.2015, Therefore, The Assessment Need To Be Made De-Novo.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

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

M/S. Silicon Estates, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 24/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 292BSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 90

have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that that there are many Page 7 of 10 sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction

Sys Information Healthcare India Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1026/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT