“Section 271(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)8,984 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court

1,183

citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court

953

citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

812

citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court

694

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court

672

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Hirachand Javerchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 32/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Hirachand Javerchand Jain Dcit Cc-4(2) 15, Dadi Seth Agairy Lane, Room No.-655, 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi, Mumbai- 400 002 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aadpj3101C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS KAVITHA

Ramaniklal Sivji Savla, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

ITA 1527/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases made during the year under consideration to the tune of Rs.23389804/-, the Assessing Officer (AO) has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded ... levy penalty of Rs.5,64,464/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act @ 100% of the amount sought to be evaded by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the penalty levied

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nadiadwala Entertainment & Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5663/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Circle-16(1), M/S Nadiadwala Entertainment Room No. 439, 4Th Floor & Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Barkat, Plot No. 20, Gulmohar M.K. Road, Cross Road, No. 5, Jvpd Mumbai-400020. Scheme, Juhu Scheme, Vile Parle-West, Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aaccn 0187 E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Anant A. Pai, AR

Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Nagin G. Suthar, Mumbai vs. ITO 22 (2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3185/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: 07.09.2022

Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6140/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 461/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 7 of the Act. Corporate Tax Grounds 6. Disallowance of lease rental a. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Ground No. 4 is disposed off as being infructuous. Ground No. 5 18. Ground No. 5 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings. Ground No.5 challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings

Ramesh J. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 823/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 823/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Ramesh J. Thakkar 26(3)(6) Mumbai 51, Moti Sagar,3Rd Road बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Floor, Ganesh Gawde Road, Vs. Road, Church Gate, Mulund(W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 400080 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabpt4367L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Mehul Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Neeta Jeph सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.03.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 147/143(3), For The Ay 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Neeta Jeph

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 823/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment

Chevron Metal Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assi.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1001/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 999, 1000 & 1001/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14) M/S. Chevron Metal बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle 8(2) Products Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22-A Panton Bunder Road, Mumbai-400050. Near, Britannia Darukhana, Raey Road, Mumbai- 400010. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2190E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50 Mumbai Dated 21.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Confirming Both The Quantum As Well As Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. AR)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

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

Chevron Metal Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1000/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. AR)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

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

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, West Bengal vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-

ITA 2090/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 2090/मुं/2022 ("न. व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1969/मुं/2022 ("न. व. 2010-11) Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017 Pan: Aaace-6607-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(4), 9Thfloor, Old Cgo Building, M.K.Road,Mumbai- 400 020 ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sukanya Jayaram ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Heliwal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16/06/2022 Common For The Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11, Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms.Sukanya JayaramFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ई”, मुंबई "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ओम"काशकांत, लेखा

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-1(40, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-

ITA 1969/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms.Sukanya JayaramFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Sudarshan Roshanlal Kharbanda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1677/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801CSection 801C(2)(a)Section 80I

interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 13. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 14. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal

Sr Technics Switzerland Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6616/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyals.R. Technics Switzerland Limited. C/O. B-206, Citipoint, A.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aalcs3475M ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation), Range- 4(2) (2), Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dhanesh Bafna / Sh. Pratik Shah Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Acit(It-4(2)(2), Mumbai, [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Acit’] Dated 24.09.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Dhanesh Bafna / Sh. Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 245Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)

refund. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and - in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 1,11,41,845/- 2. Brief facts of the case are that this

Jm Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7118/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

learned AO has legally erred in initiating and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on a mere difference of opinion on purely legal issues. The Appellant prays that the learned AO be directed to drop ... penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal herein above and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the earing

Shri Rajnish C. Bharti, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -30, Mumbai

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

ITA 311/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.311/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Shri Rajnish C. Bharti बिधम/ Pcit-30, Mumbai 506B, Rajendra Vihar Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Evershine Nagar, Malad Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To West, Mumbai-400064. C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E)-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpb6150F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C. V. Jain Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-30, Mumbai Dated 04.03.2020 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri C. V. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

should not be made is not considered as the issue involved in the. case of the HUF is completely different. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for concealment of income. 8. Considering the above, total income of the assessee is computed as under: 1 Total income

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

instead of INR 9,85,00,000 as claimed by the Appellant. 16. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act The learned AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c ... instead of INR 6,61,14,300 as claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income. 11. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act The learned AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessment proceedings as well as in recovery proceedings. I, therefore, levy a penalty of Rs.15,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen crores only) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.2 It seems that the AO levied penalty @ 200%. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)