“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(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.

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. 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.

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.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court

1,967

citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

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. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court

1,656

citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More

82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court

1,579

citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

Shree Munisuvrat Swami Jain Shwetamber Murtipujakl Sangh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), WD-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2723/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 144Section 153(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “H- SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI

Huhtamaki India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 6, Mumbai

ITA 2668/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeι.Τ.Α No.2668/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Huhtamaki India Limited A-802, Cresenzo, C-38/39 G Block, Brandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan: Aaact0086E Appellant Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-6, Mumbai 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahrishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Shrisolgy Jose T. Kottaram(Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2024 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M: Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of Thelearned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-6 (For Brevity, ‘Ld.Pcit') Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act'), For Assessment Year 2018-19, Date Of Order21.03.2024.The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The Order Of The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (In Short, ‘The A.O.') Passed Under Section 143(3)Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Date Of Order19/04/2021. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: ShriSolgy Jose T. Kottaram(CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 263

Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi). The Ld.AR further invited our attention in the assessment order and the notices under section 142 (1) of the Act where the Ld.AO asked the explanation related to receipt of EPCG and the additional depreciation, APB pages 190 to 198. 5. During ... payment amounting to Rs.3,35,17,335/- was duly discussed by the Id. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and the notice under section 142(1) is covered with the explanation that was sought for EPCG payment and the additional depreciation claim. The Ld.AR placed a copy of the return

Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

ITA 2645/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2645/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80GSection 80J

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Rajshri Pictures Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2467/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

relevant details pertaining to the issue were submitted before the AO and in this regard drew our attention to the notices issued under section 142(1) and the reply submitted before the AO (page 8 to 19 of the PB). The ld. AR also submitted that the AO has verified

Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai-5, Ayakar Bhavan Mumbai

ITA 1926/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Mr. Naresh Topandas Aidasani, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi/ DCIT-27(2), Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 105/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI. RAJ KUMAR

Lata Sriram, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4015/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawallata Sriram Vs. Ito 16(2)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, 12/N, Dilwara, M.K.Road, M.K.Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaups1197G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Ashu Mathur, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-71(3), Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 623/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

1 ITA 622 & 623/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE

Ashu Mathur, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-71(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 622/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

1 ITA 622 & 623/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 9482/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

ITA No. 9482/Del/2019 Samsung India Electronics. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G

Exotic Realtors and Developers, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

duly served upon the assessee in time. Reason for scrutiny was “Income from Real Estate Business.” 4. Thereafter on 14/01/2020 a Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was served on the assessee firm, by virtue of which questionnaire calling basic information and so also other information were sought ... brief return of income dt. 27/09/2018 was accepted as it is despite notice under section 143(2) dt. 22/09/2019 and a notice under section 142(1) dt. 14/01/2020, 17/02/2020, 09/06/2020. It is required to be noted and appreciated that the assessee firm had given replies to the Notices as aforesaid

Danabhai Bharvad, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 844/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 28-11- 2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With Tribunal, Reads As Under:- “1. The Assessing Officer & Commissioner Appeal Have Erred In Law & In Facts, In Considering The Cash Deposit As Un-Explained Cash Deposit.

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 249(4)Section 250Section 28

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2010-11 Danabhai Bharvad

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Anilkumar Ochhavlal Desai, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 292/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 159Section 250Section 68

furnished return of income in response to the notice under section 148 and stating that this may be treated as a notice under section 142(1) read with section 129 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I.T.A No. 292/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 14 DCIT Vs. Anilkumar Ochhavlal Desai ... petitioner addressed a letter dated 02.08.2018 to the Income Tax Officer objecting to the notices issued under section 148 as well as under section 142(1) of the Act and drew his attention to the earlier letter dated 27.04.2018 informing him about the death of his father and requesting

Dilip Rangnath Pagare, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Aurangabad

ITA 972/PUN/2024[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Dilip Rangnath Pagare Plot No. 23, Gut No. 105, Pwd Housing Society, Aurangaba-431001. Pan: Bjcpp2914G. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(12), Aurangabad. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062379260(1) Dt. 11/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(12), Aurangabad [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2012-13 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter];

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Avinash Rajendrakumar Gholap, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 861/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.861/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Avinash Rajendrakumar Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Gholap, A/P Gholapwadi, Uddhat Taluka Indrapur, Pune- 413103. Pan : Abjpg2776M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. S. Gudhate Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.04.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Passing Order Wherein Specific Request Of Adjournment Was Made By Assessee & Same Was Not Rejected By Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac).

For Appellant: Shri S. S. GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144B(1)(xxiv)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Pawar Patkar Construction Pvt. Ltd, Nashik

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

ITA 834/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA

M/S. Ganga Electricals, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax.-1, Nashik

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

ITA 215/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Posina Jaya Lakshmi, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.120/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Posina Jaya Lakshmi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. Ward-2(1), Pan: Cakpp2158N Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 26/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीयअिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम SMC पीठ, िवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे

Vandana Daga, Chennai vs. Pr. CIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1056/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1056/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vandana Daga, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 19-C, Nungambakkam High Road, Non Corporate Ward 3(5), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aclpv1469P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai 4, Chennai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 13 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Not Pressed & Accordingly Dismissed As Not Pressed. 3. Ground Nos. 1 To 12 Raised By The Assessee Concerning Only Issue Questioning The Validity Of Jurisdiction Assumed By The Ld. Pcit Under Section 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

same assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act and subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire. He submits that the assessee filed reply to the said notice under section 142(1 ... assessment as well as reassessment was completed without making any addition by accepting the returned income. The notice dated 28.10.2021 issued under section 142(1) of the Act is on record, wherein for the same issues as raised by the ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act were raised

Visteon Corporation, Michigan vs. DCIT, Intenl Taxn, Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 262/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:259, 260, 261 & 262/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & S.A. Nos. 28, 29 & 30/Chny/2023 [In Ita Nos. 259, 261 & 262/Chny/2023] M/S. Visteon Corporation, The Deputy Commissioner Grace Lake Corporation Centre, Vs. Of Income Tax, Van Buren Township, International Taxation, Michigan - 48111 Circle 2(2), Chennai. Pan: Aadcv 5660K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate (By Virtual) Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Bara Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Three Appeals By The Assessee In Ita Nos.259, 261 & 262/Chny/2023 Are Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle 2(2), Chennai Vide Orders Of Even Date 06.01.2023 In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-2

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate (By Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Bara Som, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 263

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