← 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)

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 106/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Mafatlal Harakchandji Bothra, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.-19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1002/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemaftlal Harkchandji Ito – 19(2)(3) Bothrac/O. D.C 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Bothra & Co. Llp (Cp) Matru Mandir, Vs. (Formerly Known As Tardeo Road, D.C Bothra & Co), Mumbai-400007. 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aggpb3538C (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar Singh.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Maftlal Harkchandji ITO – 19

Anil Premchand Motiramani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Thane

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

ITA 3017/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Pratap N. Sharma
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 54F

08/10/2016 declaring a total income of Rs.98,77,340. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, on perusal

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

claimed a refund of Rs.1473,59,05,472. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 29/03/2011 passed

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

claimed a refund of Rs.1473,59,05,472. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 29/03/2011 passed

Veena Devi, Muzaffarpur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi Pr. Cit, Patna-1 Vs Krishnapuri, Nh 28 Bhagwanpur Chowk Muzaffarpur - 842001 [Pan: Aoyps8291P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Maskara, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 23/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighteen (18) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Ld Pcit, Patna Is Wrong, Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Maskara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “पटना“ "यायपीठ पटना IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA (Heard from Kolkata Benches through

Hind Tradex Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6859/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Hind Tradex Ltd., Vs Acit, C/O S.B. Garg & Co., Cas, Circle-11(2), 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacch6542B

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms Maimun Alam, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 672/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 672/Del/2018 (A.Y 2008-09)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 234BSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 43B

1 ITA. 672/Del/2018 Motorola Solutions India IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : “E” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B

Pragati Pallavi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 86/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 86/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pragati Pallavi Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Vs Patna Flat No. 4 A/D Radha Kunj Apartment A.N. Path North S.K. Puri Patna - 800013 [Pan: Awhpp6938C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/08/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition For Undisclosed Cash Deposit U/S 69A Of The Act At Rs. 13,50,000/- Deposited During The Demonetization Period. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. Income Of Rs.8,40,280/- Declared In The Return For Assessment Year 2017-18. On The Basis Of The Reason That Cash Of Rs.18,50,000/- Has Been Deposited In The Bank Account Held By The Assessee With Kotak Mahindra Bank During Demonetization Period, Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Serving Of Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Submitted That The Assessee Holds A Joint Account Her Husband In Kotak Mahindra Bank A/C No.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “पटना“ "यायपीठ पटना IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA (Heard from Kolkata Benches through

M/S.the Paravur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO, Kollam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Stay Petition are dismissed

ITA 105/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 105/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Paravur Service Co- बनाम/ Ito, Income Tax Operative Bank Ltd, Bank Department Vs. Building, Paravur, Post, Kollam. Thiruvananthapuram- 691301. Pan No. Aakas9699E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Sp. No. 45/Coch/2023 Arising Out Of Ita. No.105/Coch/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Paravur Service Co- बनाम/ Ito, Income Tax Operative Bank Ltd, Bank Department Vs. Building, Paravur, Post, Kollam. Thiruvananthapuram- 691301. Pan No. Aakas9699E "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaap1047R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Santhosh P Abraham Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.01.2023 For Ay. 2017-18. Since We Proceed With The Hearing Of Appeal On Merits, The Stay Petition Filed By Assessee Against Demand Raised Has Become In- Fructuous & So Is Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh P AbrahamFor Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 271BSection 274Section 44ASection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Laxman Nainani, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 21/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt

Dilip Construction Company, Balod vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 78/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.78/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Construction Company Main Road, New Market, Dalli Rajhara, Balod (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Aadfd9426A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd., As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच ”, मुंबई पीठ "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी गगन गोयल

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd., As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच ”, मुंबई पीठ "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी गगन गोयल

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd.), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच ”, मुंबई पीठ "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी गगन गोयल

Pandurang Hari Vaidya and Company, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 22(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 278/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhpandurang Hari Vaidya Vs. Income Tax Officer & Company, 109, Ward 22(2)(5), Someshwar Niwas, Room No. 320, 3 Rd Floor, Shivaji Park Road No. 3 Piramal Chambers, Lal Dadar West, Baug, Parel, Mumbai – 400028 Mumbai - 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aahft7721Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mihirnaniwadekar Adv. & Rucha Vaidya Respondent By : Ujjawalchavhan Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.03.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: MihirNaniwadekar Adv. &For Respondent: UjjawalChavhan
Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 68

P a g e | 1 Pandurang Hari Vaidya and Company vs. ITO, Ward 22 (2)(5) IN THE INCOME TAX

Kanakia Gruhnirman Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3219/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekanakia Gruhnirman Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 10(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Kanakia Future City, Cts No. 101 Behind Dr. L. H. Hiranandani Hospital Mumbai - 400020 Near Ayyappa Temple, Tirandaz Powai, Mumbai – 400076 Pan: Aaack1572C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Trade and Capital Venture Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3211/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

assessment year 2019-20. The fact of non 20. The fact of non- issue of notice under sec issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act for the AY 2019 for the AY 2019-20 has been verified from the information available on the database of has been

ITO, Ward-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bansal Separators and Spares Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3173/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleito – Ward – 14(1)(1) V. M/S. Bansal Separators & Spares Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 431, 4Th Floor 6, Laxminarayan Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sion Trombay Road, Chembur Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400071 Pan: Aabcb8468M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Abhishek Doshi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3122/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Pratap N. Sharma
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

30/09/2014 declaring a total income of Rs.82,60,580. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that