← 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)

Tom Thomas, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (CPC), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed” (Emphasis Supplied)

ITA 20/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Bhavin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chintamani V. Divgankar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 90Section 90(2)

does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case Form 67 is not filed before the due date prescribed for filing return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the time limit for provided in Rule 128(9) of the Rules should be considered as directory and not mandatory ... Rules, 1962 (For Short „Rules‟) provide for disallowance of FTC where Form 67 is filed beyond due date of tax return as per Section 139(1) of the Act, the Tax Treaty would override the Act, and the Appellant would be entitled to get FTC as per Article

Munish Babaji Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2022[MUNISH BABJI SAWANT]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022
For Appellant: Shri. Anil SatheFor Respondent: M/s. Neeta Jeph
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

744/Mum/2022 MUNISH BABAJI SAWANT 13. In view of the above, we find that due date for furnishing the return of income as per Section 139(1) of the Act is subject to the extended period provided under Sub-Section (4) of Section 139 of the Act. 14. Consequently, the question

Xprize Foundation, Mumbai vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/ACIT/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2187/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.N. D‟souza
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)

2187/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 failed to file Form 10 before the due date of filing return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. 5. In the appeal preferred against the Assessment Order, dated 23.02.2021, the CIT(A) declined to grant any relief vide order dated ... application provided certain conditions are satisfied, one such condition being filing Form 10 before the due date of filing return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. 10. The power to condone delay in filing Form 10 vested with CBDT in terms of Section

DCIT Cent. Cir-2(3), Mumbai vs. Soma Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1818/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Vs

DCIT Central Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Soma Enterprises Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1817/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Vs

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Income

M/S. Suresh Electricals, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Suresh Electricals, Vs. Dcit, Ward No.25, Cmc T. S. No.227, Tilak Cpc, Nagar, Khb Colony, Bengaluru. Bellary – 583 101. Pan : Abyfs 9751 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate 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 12.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2018

M/S. Graceworks Realty & Leisure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax-8, Mumbai

ITA 719/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Graceworks Realty & Pr. Commissioner Of Leisure Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-8, 611, 6Th Floor, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Phoenix Mills Premises, Aayakar Bhavan, Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 013 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aapcg2308P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263

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

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2019

Bhoruka Fabcons Private Limited, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, Cpc, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccb 9377 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bhargava S. N, 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 28.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Calculated In The Prescribed Manner Under The Relevant Act. As Per Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. Bhargava S. N, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2020

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2019

Roxaane Research P.Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle-5(4), Chennai

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

ITA 2528/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2528/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Roxaane Research Pvt. Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner- Unit 9, Stpi Building, Of Income Tax, 5 Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Corporate Circle-5(4), Taramani, Chennai-600 113. Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.V. Nandakumar, JCIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय

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

avail the benefit, such companies will have to exercise the option in the prescribed manner on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) for furnishing the return of income for any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after 1st day of April

Chase Security, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 796/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Chase Security, Vs. The Ito, No.16/A, 1St Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), Cpc, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aaefc 2412 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2021 By The Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2018

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

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)

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 as per section 139(4) of the Act. Therefore, the penalty proceeding under section 271F of the Act was initiated vide notice ... penalty should be dropped. He also submitted that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing IT Return within the provision of section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee will get relief as per section 273B of the Act. 9. On the other hand, the learned DR relied

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)

Assessment Centre, erred in appreciating the fact that the Returns of Income filed by the Appellant were within the time limit as per Section 139(1), since the accounts of the Appellant were required to be audited as per the amended Trust Deed. 6. Without prejudice, On the facts ... erroneously adopted 31st July as the due date of filling of return of income as envisaged under clause (c) of Explanation 2 to section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore the disallowance of the brought forwarded business loss was wrong. 8. The above said contentions of the was not accepted

M/S. Gigaplex Estate Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee does not hold merit and is hereby

ITA 2080/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manan MathuriaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojia
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 190/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahveer C Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

IT(TP)A No.190/Bang/2022 M/s. Radisys India Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE SMT. BEENA

Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward-10(6), Chennai vs. Shri Arun Gupta, Chennai

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

ITA 844/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-Tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), V. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [Pan: Agrpa-8340-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate & Mrs. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022

For Respondent: Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate &
Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54E

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