← All Phrases

“Section 143(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(2)17,209 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(2) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(2)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

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. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

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 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.

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).

Judgments citing Section 143(2)

Genpact Services Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Genpact Services Llc, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 22A & B, Circle-1(3)(1), Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, International Taxation, Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccg3353P

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

Instrumentation Laboratory India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 10(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2051/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Instrumentation Laboratory Vs. Dcit India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(2) 1471-1476, 14Th Floor, New Delhi Aggarwal Millennium Tower- 2, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Aabci6557N Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234BSection 234CSection 271

opinion, AO and Id CIT(A) has passed the orders without following principles of natural justice. In respect of notice under section 143(2), we find that notice was issued on the same date at 11 AM and it was not possible for the assessee to file submission and could

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune, Swargate vs. Grupo Antolin India Private Limited, Pune

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1118/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1118/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Dhanraj Dangi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Akhilesh Srivastava [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(2)Section 92C

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

Chethan Narayan, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1109/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 234Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Hbs Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3949/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailhbs Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of 505 Ceejay House, Dr. Income Tax- 7(1)(2) Annie Besant Road, Worli Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacc1641C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mandar Vaidya Respondent By : P.D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Appellant'S Appeal As 'Delayed Solely Because The Appeal, In The First Instance, Was Filed Manually & Not Electronically. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Misdirected Himself In Not Appreciating That Failure To File The Appeal Electronically, In The First Instance Is, At Best, A Procedural Defect & The Difference Between 'Manual' & 'Electronic' Is, Merely Of Form. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not, In The Given Circumstances, Justified In Declining To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal 4. The Ld. Cit(A) Fell In Error In Not Appreciating That Plurality Of Objects Was Not Precluded In The Purposes Contemplated U/S.11(2) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: P.D. Chougule
Section 11(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

P a g e | 1 HBS Realtors Pvt.Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT-7(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E

Teamlease Digital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2100/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: P.D. Chougule
Section 143(2)Section 14A

P a g e | 1 Teamlease Degital Private Limited Vs. National E-assessment Centre IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Mahinder Chawla, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int. Tax- 1(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 473/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Mahinder Chawla, Vs Acit, H-80, South Extension, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi – 110 049. New Delhi. Pan: Acdpc9480B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42, (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-42/10596/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Acit, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Records.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 55

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND

Dskn Jewellers, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-46(3), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1051/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmadskn Jewellers Vs. Ito C/O. Mr. Samar Kapoor, Adv. Ward – 46(3) Chamber No.E-523, Karkardooma New Delhi Court, Delhi-32 Pan No. Aahfd 2162 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 27Section 271(1)(b)

quashed. 4. That the Assessment Order under section 144 with read section 147 dated 29/12/2018 is liable set aside as neither notice under section 143(2) was issued nor served on the assessee. 5. That the assessing officer is wrong in making addition of Rs. 1,36,69,033/- being

Pushpa Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -3(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3604/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyapushpa Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (3), Tg-6/8A, Sun City, Sector 54, Gurgaon. Gurgaon (Haryana).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pushpa Gupta, vs

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 694/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

considered view that in the instant case, firstly, the assessee has not brought on record any cogent material to suggest that notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) were not issued within stipulated time. Secondly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the notices were issued after taking due approval from

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 693/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

considered view that in the instant case, firstly, the assessee has not brought on record any cogent material to suggest that notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) were not issued within stipulated time. Secondly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the notices were issued after taking due approval from

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 692/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

considered view that in the instant case, firstly, the assessee has not brought on record any cogent material to suggest that notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) were not issued within stipulated time. Secondly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the notices were issued after taking due approval from

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 691/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

considered view that in the instant case, firstly, the assessee has not brought on record any cogent material to suggest that notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) were not issued within stipulated time. Secondly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the notices were issued after taking due approval from

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 690/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

considered view that in the instant case, firstly, the assessee has not brought on record any cogent material to suggest that notices under Section 143(2) / 142(1) were not issued within stipulated time. Secondly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the notices were issued after taking due approval from

Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1124/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Lilaben Rameshbhai The Dy.Cit Savaliya Vs Central Circle-1(1) Legal Heir Of Rameshbhai Ahmedabad N.Savaliya 12, Paritosh Bungalows Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pan: Abjps 1312 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18/01/2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made By The Smt.Lilaben Rameshbhai .Savaliya Legal Heir Of Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya Asst.Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘ए’, अहमदाबाद

Chandravadan Desai, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 674/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandravadan Desai Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Sb Tower, 3Rd Floor Vs Kolkata 37, Shakespeare Sarani Circus Avenue S.O. Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabdh5812Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority’) Dt. 09/05/2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), Dt. 30/12/2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15 Framed By Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Inspite Of Being Aware That Chandravadan Desai Huf Had Been Partitioned & Had Ceased To Exist Upon Its Partition On The 26Th Day Of March 2014 & The Impugned Penalty Order Passed By The Ao In The Name Of Chandravadan Desai Huf, A Non-Existent Person Was Invalid & Therefore The Order Deserves To Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

Hoogly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1474/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1474/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hoogly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata C/O. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Vs 15, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaach7473B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Sundaram, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority’) Dt. 20/11/2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), Dt. 06/09/2022 Relevant To Assessment Year 2020-21 Framed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Company Fully Owned By The Government Of India & Is A Public Sector Undertaking Carrying On The Business Of Building & Repair Of Ships & Boats. For The Year Under Consideration, E-Return Was Furnished On 27/01/2021 Which Was Subsequently Revised On 01/02/2021 Declaring Income Of Rs.1,53,68,81,820/-. After Serving Of Valid Notice U/S 143(2) & 142 (1)

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Sundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35DSection 40

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

Surya Adiga, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ward-4(2)(1) Department Location: *Bengaluru

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

ITA 473/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194Section 234BSection 250

ITA No.473/Bang/2024 Surya Adiga, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S. Bangalore University, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemptions Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1040/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai S. & Sri Joseph Varghese, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, D.R
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The impugned assessment order is without jurisdiction in as much as the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act does not contain any/signature and thereby no valid notice was issued thereunder on the facts and circumstances of the case

Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle, Chandrapur

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 228/NAG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Abay Marathe [Ld. DR’]
Section 10(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI