“Section 143(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)2,323 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)(a)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

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. 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. 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 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.

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.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)(a)

Ganganagar Vehicles Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 990/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pratap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

made in the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act on a finding that such disallowance is beyond the scope of section 143(1)(a) of the Act, albeit the Tribunal noted that it is conscious of the fact that the issue on merits is decided against the assessee ... proceedings whether it is scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act or the proceeding of processing tax return under Section 143(1) of the IT Act. Following the above decision, we hold that the adjustment u/s 143(1) made on account of delayed payment of PF/ESIC

Harkaran Singh Bindra, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1 (3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1086/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुरन्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिकसदस्य एवंश्रीराठोडकमलेशजयन्तभाई, लेखा

Dimple Rajesh Oswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2016

Swaminathan Sukumar, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1105/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 140B(3)Section 140B(3)(i)Section 140B(3)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234F

rejected. 5.3 Analysis of Ground No. 4: 5.3.1 The appellant has contended that none of the sub-clauses of Section 143(1)(a) envisages raising an additional tax demand, as there was no apparent incorrect claim made in the return. Section 143(1)(a) provides for making certain adjustments ... under section 234F, totalling to Rs.4,64,062/-, on 25.05.2022 after adjusting TDS of Rs.25,632/-. The CPC, in processing the return under section 143(1), levied additional tax under section 140B(3)(ii) at 50% (instead of 25%) and computed interest under section 234A till 31.10.2022, i.e., the date

Antrix Corporation Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1041/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gunashekar, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 40ASection 90A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Alankit Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Assessment Year 2019-20. 1. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal :- “1) That the intimation dated 19.05.2020 issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the CPC, Bengaluru and the additions made therein is bad in law and without jurisdiction, and is therefore ... appreciating that the disallowance under Section 36(1 )(va) of the Act could not have been made in an intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, as the same involves a debatable issue which is beyond the scope of adjustments permissible under Section 143(1

NRI Academy of Sicences, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption Circle), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.213/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Vs. Nri Academy Of Sciences Income Tax Officer – Exemption 60-3-1/44 Yk Buildings Vijayawada Bus Route No. 5 Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada, Currency Nagar S.O. Vijayawada (Urban) Krishna – 520008, Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaatn4207C] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

vide DIN &Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073008634(1) dated 07.02.2025 I.T.A.No.213/VIZ/2025 NRI ACADEMY OF SCIENCES for the A.Y.2023-24 arising out of intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 18.11.2024. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a Society registered ... permissions to administrator the functions of the Society. The Centralized Processing Centre (hereinafter in short “CPC”) while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act on 18.11.2024 disallowed a sum of Rs.90,33,530/- under section 40A(3) of the Act based on the disallowance cited

Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanastha Ltd, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Ward One(One)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

after the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act, i.e. on 31.08.2019. The Central Processing Centre processed the return applying section 143(1)(a) of the Act and denied the claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the ground that return has been filed after

F.V. 112 the Villupuram District Public Health Department Employees Coop Thrift and Credit Society, Villupuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Villupuram

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2047/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2047/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Fv 112 The Villupuram District Public The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Health Department Employees Co-Op. Ward-1, Thrift & Credit Society, 60, Vilupuram. Kandasamy Layout, 1St Street, (K.K. Road), Villupuram 605 602, Viluppuram [Pan: Aaaaf4857B]

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. The ground of appeal primarily contended before the ld. CIT(A) is that the order under section 143(1)(a) is bad in law, as section 143(1)(a) does not empower the Assessing Officer to deny deduction under section 80P merely ... that denial of deduction under FV 112 – The Vilupuram. :- 3 -: section 80P could not have been made as a prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a). Upon consideration of the facts and submissions, it is observed that the provisions of section 80AC mandate that no deduction under section

Ft 92 the Vilupuram and Tindivanam Gov Arts College Teaching and Non-Teaching Staffs Co-Op Society, Vilupuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vilupuram

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2046/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2046/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

Return of Income was not filed within the due date. (ii) The disallowance u/s 80(P) was outside the scope and ambit of section 143(1)(a)(iv) for A.Y. 2019-20. It is seen from intimation order that that the extended due date of filing of original return ... made in the intimation issued by CPC. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 3. The relevant provisions of Section 143(1)(a) prescribing processing of return of income (as amended by Finance Act, 2018), as applicable to AY 2018-19, read as under: 143(1

M/S. Unique Pharmaceutical Laboratories Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 3294/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

undisputed facts reveal that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.19,41,37,910/-, which was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed after due verification, without any variation

Pawan Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2509/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

grounds raised by the assessee read as under: “1. That the intimation order dated 29.11.2021 passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ITA No. 2509/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2020-21] Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. The A.D.I.T to as 'the Act') for Assessment Year ... circumstances of the case, the CPC has erred on facts and in law, in not considering that the addition has been made under Section 143(1) of the Act and the same is beyond the scope of the said provision and as such the CPC had no power/authority/jurisdiction to make

Neeraj Kumar Sinha, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 291/RAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayneeraj Kumar Sinha, I.T.O., Prop.-M/S Neeraj Engineering, Chota Ward-1(1), Vs. Ghamaria, Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-832108 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Bopps 2885 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154

That, moreover, in this respect it is stated and submitted that Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that the statutory provision of section 143(1)(a)(ii) provides that the adjustment of an incorrect claim can be made if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return ... debatable issue he has held that as per revenue it was not a debatable issue. 1.8 For that while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) Bangalore disallowed the employees' contribution to ESI and PF and the ld. CIT (Appeals) also sustained

Raipur Realty Pvt Ltd, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 (1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 241/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.241/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Raipur Realty Pvt. Ltd. E-76, G.K. Chambers, Sector-2, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aahcr0621C ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 263Section 96

tune of ₹ 24,30,521/- which was processed by the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru and intimation order was issued exercising powers under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act wherein total income was assessed at ₹ 87,94,860/- determining the aggregate tax liability at ₹ 23,93,421/- and consequentially ... assessee was processed on 3-1-2021 by the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru and intimation order was issued exercising powers under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act wherein total income was assessed at ₹ 87,94,860/- determining the aggregate tax liability at ₹ 23,93,421/- and consequently refund

Sahyadri Farmers Producer Company Limited, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 951/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.951/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sahyadri Farmers Producer Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Nashik. Company Limited, Survey No.1102/8, Behind Police Head Quarter, Adgaon, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aapcs1516D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “ (All The Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Each Other) 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-6 Delhi Erred In Law & Fact In Upholding Disallowance U/S Boib(114) Amounting To Rs.8,73,57,770 Made By Learned Dcit, Cpc (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(1)Section 801BSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Hmshost Hospitality Services Bharath Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra Mohan Gupta – Advocate and Shri Divjot Oberoi - CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 43B

assessee has raised a ground that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the adjustment of ₹3,32,571 made by CPC under section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act towards provision for gratuity. 3. The contention of the assessee is that this amount was never claimed ... wrongly assumed that the entire gratuity provision mentioned in the tax audit report was claimed as deduction, and made an adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. The AR contended that such an adjustment is not permissible as the amount under OCI was never claimed, and further, debatable issues

Caspian Impact Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.749/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Caspian Impact Vs. Dy.Cit Investments Private Ltd, Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcs4132K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Caspian Impact Investments Private Limited, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Mumbai (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), Dated 27.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43B

assessee revised its return of income only to modify disclosure in Schedule BP of ITR pursuant to a proposed adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. However, the income in the revised return was the same as declared in the original return. During the year, the assessee acquired ... normal provisions and Rs.8,42,68,147/- under section 115JB of the Act. The second revised return was processed by CPC under section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 09.03.2021. CPC made the additions of Rs.1,64,955/- under section 36(1)(iii), Rs.13,22,458/- under section

Jaybheri Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 410/VIZ/2025[2012-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2012-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.410/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) Jaybheri Enterprises, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaofj1639A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Mn. Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 11/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN. Murthy Naik

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member

Jehan Numa Palace Hotel Private Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT/ACIT, 5(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 203/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

denial of the claim of deduction u% 80/A of Rs. 1,68,90,212 is beyond the scope of adjustments provided in section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 9.BECAUSE, the Intimation order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (CPC) is a non-speaking order wherein the reason ... thus: ‘7.8 It is pertinent to note that the appellant has filed form no. 10CCB on 11.10.2017 i.e. after passing the intimation under section 143(1) dated 20.03.2017. Thus, it is well established fact that at the time of passing the intimation under section 143(1), the form No. 10CCB

Hare Ram Mandir Trust, Bhopal vs. ITO -Exemption, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 770/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT