“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 Ginger Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cr 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2641/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

months from the end of the financial year in which the return under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act is furnished. Thus, the time period provided in the aforesaid section for issuance of notice is in respect of Shree Ginger Enterprises ... return filed under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142 (1) of the Act. However, in the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO under section 147 and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued only pursuant there to. Thus, in view

Sri Santhosh Nagesh Jannu, Raichur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary

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

ITA 824/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 133ASection 144Section 234Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

Bhupati Investments & Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1134/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Bhupati Investments Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-6 B-34/35, 3Rd Floor, 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Paragon Condominium, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Pandurang Budhkar Road, Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacb0441P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Aarti Vissanji Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit-6, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pr. Cit) Erred In Passing An Order U/S 263 & Directing The Assessing Officer To Modify The Order Dated 16/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Your Appellants Submit That The Order Of The Pr. Cit Is Illegal, Bad In Law & Void & The Same Ought To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

ITA No.1134/Mum/2022 AY. 2017-18 1 M/s Bhupati Investments and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT-6 IN THE INCOME TAX

Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 951/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Anil. S. Sant, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

M/S. Kwality Biscuits Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 675/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S

D, N, Vikraman, Tuticorin vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Madurai

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

ITA 250/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 250/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

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

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M Pallonji Enerprises P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 68

Assessing Officer. 6. Before us the Ld. counsel Ld. counsel of the assessee referred to notice of the assessee referred to notice under section 142(1) of the under section 142(1) of the Act dated 09/08/2011 issue 09/08/2011 issued during the original scrutiny proceedings, which is available on page ... notice under section premium. The Assessing Officer had issued a notice under section premium. The Assessing Officer had issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act on 09/08/2011 asking on 09/08/2011 asking the assessee to furnish the assessee to furnish details of increase in share capital and details

Smt, Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 922/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Smt. Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. Iii, 3Rd Floor, Poojapura Vs. Income Tax- Chennai I, Apartments, St. Mary’S Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aakpu6790M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai - I, Chennai, Dated 20.05.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

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

CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 05.07.2017 was issued and served on the assessee followed by notice under section 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act dated 24.08.2017. In response to the above notices, the AR of the assessee appeared and furnished all the details ... order under section 263 of the Act may kindly be dropped.” 6.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, against the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has furnished the following details before the Assessing Officer: Sub: Scrutiny assessment of Smt. UMAIYAL RADHAI I PAN: AAKPU6790M

M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

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

ITA 3243/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2913/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Salem. Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Tamil Nadu 636 903. [Pan:Aabck1431D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3243/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Thirumagal Alloys Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 5/95, Cmelbatchhapet, Income Tax, Sennimalai Gardens, Harur, Circle I, Salem. Tamil Nadu 636 903. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem, Dated 01.03.2018 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

issued and served on the assessee. As there was change in the incumbent, fresh opportunity was accorded to the assessee through notice under section 142(1) dated 26.05.2015, calling for details. In response to the above hearing notices Shri K.S. Vijay, one of the directors of the company appeared from

Thirumagal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Harur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Hosur

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

ITA 2913/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Hatkesh Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is allowed

ITA 1011/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shripavankumargadale, Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhhatkesh Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer-25 Housing Society Ltd. (2) (4) 2Nd Floor, 51, Jain Co- Kautilyabhavan, Op Hsgsoc, N.S. Road Bandrakurla Complex, 11, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Bandra East Parle (W) Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400049 Pan No.Aaalh0017Q Appellant Respondent

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

income and the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and notice u/sec148 of the Act was issued. Subsequently, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued and in- compliance to the notice, the managing committee member of the society attended hearing and filed the details

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

filed earlier as due compliance. Subsequently, the assessee was also provided reasons for reopening assessment and further, the AO has issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and the learned AR of the assessee has attended the proceedings and submitted the details explaining the transactions and the assessee

The Dy Comm of Income Tax (It) -Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Principal Investors Fund Inc International Growth Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 1795/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

notice under section 148 of the Act was served by affixture at the last known address of the assessee. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) was also issued to the assessee, which was also served by affixture. In absence of any response from the assessee and also on account

The Dy Comm of Income Tax (It) -Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Principal Investors Fund Inc International Growth Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 1794/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

The DCIT (It) -Circle 3(3) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Principal Investors Fund Inc International Growth Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 1793/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Lovish Kumar

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

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

ITA 15/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13-15/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of- V. Smt. A. Gandhimathi, Income Tax, Prop: East West Gandhimathi Central Circle-2(4), Combined Industries, Investigation Building, Survey No.503/2A2A, Chennai. Mambakkam Salai, Echankadu, Kayar, Kancheepuram District. [Pan: Agupa 2409 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr.Philip George, Adv. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

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

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

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

ITA 14/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

DCIT, Central CIT-2(4), Chennai vs. A Gandhimathi, Kancheepuram

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

ITA 13/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.Philip George, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

Nayara Energy Limited (on Behalf of Merged Entity Vadinar Oil Terminal Limited), Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 777/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.777/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nayara Energy Ltd (On Acit, Central Circle-2(1) बिधम/ Behalf Of Merged Entity Room No. 804, Pratishtha Vs. Vadinar Oil Terminal Ltd) Bhavan, Old Cgo 5Th Floor, Jet Airways Annexe, M. K. Road, Godrej Bkc, G- Block, Plot Mumbai-400020. C-68, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2626D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 36(1) (Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act The Act - Rs.149.80 Crores 1. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) & Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.149.80 Crores Pertaining To Loans Of Rs.1253.53 Crores Granted To Related Parties Contending Them To Be Interest Free Without Appreciating The Fact, That Out Of The Total Amount, Only Security Deposits Of Rs.96.53 Crores Are Interest Free Refundable

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

M/S Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 131/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Nandi Economic Corridor The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Enterprises Ltd., Circle – 5(1)(1), No.1, Midford House, Vs. Bengaluru. Midford Garden, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aabcn 2061 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siva Prasad Reddy, Itp Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed Paper Book comprising of 33 pages enclosing therein the notice issued by the AO under sections 142(1), 143(2) of the Act, details called for by the AO and the replies filed by the assessee. The learned AR fairly submitted that