← 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)

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 757/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Sri. M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 756/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 3, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2575/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 2575/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biju M.K. , CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

book profits u/s.115JB of the Act at Rs.213,86,35,291. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was duly served on the assessee. Since 3 IT(TP)A No. 2575/Bang/2019 M/s. Hewlett-Packard (India) the assessee had international

K. Uttamlal & Company, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-13(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 712/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhk. Uttamlal & Company Vs. Acit-13(2) 1St Floor, Bhagwan Maharshi Karve Road, Bhuvan, 196-198 New Marine Lines, Samuel Street, Churchgate - 400020 Musjid Bunder, Maharashtra – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaifk9976H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 143(2)Section 144

ITA No.712/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2010-11 1 K. Uttamlal & Company Vs. ACIT-13(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H

Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 706/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Aniruddha Upasana Cit (Exemption), Foundation, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills Flat No. 702, Link Apartment, Vs. Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Tps Iii, Khari Village, Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Khar (West), Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaics 9217 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Snehal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

For Appellant: Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

verification of payment made verification of payment made to be specified persons specified persons. The Assessing Officer Assessing Officer accordingly issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act, which was issued notice under section 143(2) of the issued notice under section 143(2) of the duly served upon ... intimated about their cases falling either in 'Limited Scrutiny' or 'Complete Scrutiny' through notices issued under secti 'Complete Scrutiny' through notices issued under section 143(2) of on 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). The procedure for handling tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). The procedure for handling

Agappe Diagnostics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1870/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalagappe Diagnostics Limited, 401. 402,Jaisingh Business Centre, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400099 Pan: Aacca3940Q ...Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No.533, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 ...Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Heera Ram.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 31Section 37

ICDS compliance and adjustment and (iv) Deduction on account of donation for scientific research. Subsequently the assessing officer has issued notice under Section 143(2) &U/sec 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 along with the questionnaire. In compliance to the notice, the assessee company has submitted the details

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar, Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice under section 143(2) was issued and duly served on the assessee. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and certain details were called ... Thummar ITA No.697/Mum./2018 CO No. 115/Mum./2019 35. In grounds No. 2 and 3, assessee has challenged issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction. It is the plea of the assessee that notice under section 143(2

Kali Bmh Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

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

ITA 864/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.864/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kali Bmh Systems P. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 42/6, B2, Chennai Road, Vs. Income Tax, Melacauvery, Kumbakonam 612 002. Circle 2(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aadck0974H]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 47

admitting a total loss of ₹.3,31,26,963/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax 3 I.T.A. No.864/Chny/20 Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. After considering the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed

Saravana Foundation, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3376/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3376/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Saravana Foundation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15, Bajanai Koil Street, Non Corporate Ward 15(4), Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Chennai. [Pan:Abmfs6610H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Dated 17.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147oSection 148Section 271BSection 44A

notice, the assessee has filed its return of income on 21.10.2014 admitting his income of ₹.6,81,745/-. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.10.2014 and was served on the assessee. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The Rialto Exim P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmvir Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 10Section 10ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 4Section 4(11)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) amounting to Rs. 7,22,39,340/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under section 143(2) of the Act. The assessee company was incorporated on 11th August, 2010. The 3. assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing activity

M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Ukn Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1739/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Antonio Whitney Munroe, China vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 35(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1801/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleantonio Whitney Vs. Acit-Circle 35(1), Munroe,4 Th Floor, Mumbai -400020. Thomson Reuters, Piramaltowers,Corporate Park,G.K.Marg, Lower Parel, West, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No. Bahpm5057R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.K.K.Vaid,&Mr.A.K.Jawadwala.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Mr.Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-46 Mumbai Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Confirming The Validity Of The Assesseement Order & The Cit(A) Also Has Erred In Non Granting Of Tds Credit &Foreign Tax Paid Credit. Antonio Whitney Munroe. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Resident Of China & Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Of 48 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Explained That Due To Covid-19 Pandemic, The Filling Was Delayed & Relied On The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Respect Of Extension Of Period Of Limitation. We Find The Registry Has Issued Defect Notice To The Assessee Mentioning The Delay Of 806 Days In Filling The Appeal. On Application Of The Ratio Of Decision Of The Honble Supreme Court In Respect Of Extension Of Limitation Period, The Delay Is Restricted To 48 Days & The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Further We Are Satisfied With The Reasonable Cause Explained For Delay In Filling The Appeal & Accordingly We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.K.K.Vaid,&Mr.A.K.Jawadwala.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Mr.Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 144

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

Bank of Baroda ( W.R.T.E- Dena Bank), Mumbai-400051 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai-400020

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1253/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhbank Of Baroda Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of (W.R.T E-Dena Bank) Income Tax-2, Baroda Corporate Centre, Room No. 344, 3 Rd Floor, 2Nd Floor, Corp A/C & Aayakar Bhavan, Tax Dept. C-26, G-Block, Maharishi Karve Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400020 Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacb1534F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: S. Ananthan &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

ITA No.1253/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 1 Bank of Baroda Vs. The Pr.CIT-2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B

Varun Gopinath, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 28(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2315/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhvarun Gopinath Vs. Ito, Ward 28(3)(1) E-2, 503, Bhimashankar Tower No. 6, Vashi Chs, Sec-19A Nerul, Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400706 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Albpg7827K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Darshan JakariaFor Respondent: Prabhat Kumar Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

ITA No.2315/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2015-15 1 Varun Gopinath Vs. ITO, Ward 28(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F

Amit Mahendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5807/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Radha HalbeFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

28/11/2014, declaring total income of Rs. 13,36,840. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. Thereafter, notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was served on the assessee calling

Motorola Mobility India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

declaring a total income of Rs.235,41,08,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice under section 143(2) was duly served on the assessee. Since the assessee had international transactions with its AE, a reference was made to the TPO for the purpose

Rialto Exim, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2316/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Rialto Exim 907, Jewel World, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aakfr3441G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3)(2), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. ..... Respondent Ito, Ward-14(3)(2), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Rialto Exim 907, Jewel World, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 Pan: Aakfr3441G ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Jayant Bhatt Respondent/Respondent By : Sh. Dharmvir Yadav/Sh. R.A. Dhyani Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/09/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Sh. Dharmvir Yadav/Sh. R.A. Dhyani
Section 10Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(2)Section 145

2426/Mum 2014-M/s Rialto Exim of the Act was conducted in this case on 21.09.2010. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under section 143(2) of the Act. 3. During the assessment proceeding, a show-cause was issued in respect of rejection of claim of deduction under section 10AA

Walvoil Fluid Power India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 339/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.339/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.19, 2Nd Cross, 2Nd Main, Of Income Tax, Kiadb Attibele Industrial Area, Circle 7(1)(2), Attibele, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 562 107. Pan: Aaacw 5954E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal Is Against The Final Order Of The Ao Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Dated 28.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On The Following Grounds:- “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That In The Calculation Of Alp The Ld. Ao Erred In Including Entities Such As M/S Dhp India Ltd & The Sundram Bleistahl

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Acropetal Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT