← 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)

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2691/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.1,78,730/-. It was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. 7. In the course of assessment, the father accepted that he had received commission to the tune of Rs.1

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 858/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/MUM/2022[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 856/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 855/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 854/MUM/2022[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 853/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 812/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 811/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 810/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 808/MUM/2022[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cen-Circle 6(2). Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/MUM/2022[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Shri. D.V. Sawant, Adv
Section 253

Assessing Officer to be received on 20/03/2015) , rejecting the petition for settlement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The date of said notices has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 31/07/2015, whereas the assessee in its submission ... assessment gets abated wherever on the date of search, assessments are pending. The limitation for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in case of return of income for assessment year 2006-07 was to be expired on 30/09/2007,(i.e. long period after search), so even

Invesco Asset Management (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 700/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.700/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Invesco Asset Management बिधम/ Pcit (Central), Mumbai- (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3 Vs. 21St Floor, 2101 “A” Wing, Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Marathon Futurex, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Parel, Mumbai-400013. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg3908J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Seth Revenue By: Shri K. C. Salvamani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai Dated 07.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Salvamani (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Majestic Premises Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharymagestic Premises Vs. Dcit, Cc-2 Private Limited 6Th Floor, Room No. 13 201, Oasis Silver Stone, A-Wing, Ashar I.T. Park, Ram Maruti Road Near Thane – 400 604 Gajanan Maharaj Temple Thane – 400602 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm5625L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mani Jain & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Mehul Jain
Section 143(2)

ITA No.689/Mum/2022 A.Y.2013-14 1 Magestic Premises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC-2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH

Vipin Madanlal Thapar, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 472/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvipin Madanlal Thapar Vs. Dcit,Cc-1 502, A-Wing, Shree Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Raveehi Apt., Plot A-Wing, Ashar I.T. Park, No.14/15, Sector 20, Road 16-Z, Koparkhairane, Wagle Indl. Estate, Navi Mumbai – 400 709 Thane, 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Acjpt9204A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rachana Bhanushali Respondent By : Ketki Desai Date Of Hearing 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed The Cit(A)-11, Pune, Dated 14.01.2022 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Upholding The Assessment Order Even Though The Underlying Order Under Section 127 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Disallowance Of 100% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases Amounting To Rs.125,60,620 Ignoring The Plethora Of Evidence Placed On Record Mainly On The Basis That The Vendors Did Not Appear Before The Authorities Below.

For Appellant: Rachana BhanushaliFor Respondent: Ketki Desai
Section 127Section 143(2)

ITA No.472/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 1 Vipin Madanlal Thapar Vs. DCIT, CC-1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Maharashtra vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 445/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(2)

ITA No.445 & 402/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 1 DCIT, CC-2(2) Vs. M/s Vinati Organics Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX

M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(2)

ITA No.445 & 402/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 1 DCIT, CC-2(2) Vs. M/s Vinati Organics Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX

M/S Flamingo Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2392/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Flamingo Vs. National Faceless Pharmaceuticals Limited Assessment Centre, Delhi 7/1 Corporate Park, Sion Circle 14(1)(2) Trombay Road, Chembur Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400071 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacf4211B Assessee .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Ketki Desai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ITA No.2392/Mum/2022 A.Y.2018-19 1 M/s Flamingo Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. NFAC, Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Legal Heir of Late Shri Satish Indra Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1839/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

that the entire reopening proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147/148 of the Act are vitiated, non-est as “no notice under section 143(2)” has been issued on 12.12.2014 as recorded in assessment order and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble 6 Legal Heir of Late ... along with intimation letter dated 12th December, 2014 regarding change of jurisdiction.” 9. In order to support his arguments that no notice under section 143(2) was ever issued by the AO after initiating the reopening of assessment proceedings the Ld. A.R. for the assessee drew my attention towards application