← All Phrases

“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)

Prabhat Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patnsanstha Maryadit Tadwadi, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward 3, Panvel

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

ITA 1433/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Vishal Makawane
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 44ASection 44BSection 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एक सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI

Income Tax Officer, Bodhi Tower vs. Kumar Builders Project Pune Private Limited, Bund Garden

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

ITA 199/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80ISection 80P

income on or before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act w.e.f. Assessment Year 2018-19 onwards. However, section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act provides that disallowance of deduction claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading “C- Deductions ... considered view denial of claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act would not come within the purview of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. Thus the case laws relied by the Ld. CIT(A) in its order is clearly distinguishable to the facts

Mirifical Careers Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 792/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.792/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2021-22 Mirifical Careers Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, 135/135A, Palanisamy Towers, Corporate Ward-2, Dharmaraj Layout, Coimbatore Sowripalayam Pirivu, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 045. [Pan: Aamcm9499E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि

Annai Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

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

ITA 780/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.780/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Annai Trust, The Income Tax Officer, D.No.25/235, Jinna Street, Exemptions Ward, Kaveripattinam(Viil) (Po), Salem Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu 635 112. [Pan: Aadta6748A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 143(1)(a)

receipts and not gross receipts. It was also simultaneously argued that the impugned disallowance, made in its case invoking provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act, per se is inadmissible given statutory prohibition qua any such addition u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Reliance was placed upon ... would have expired on 31.03.2015 which was just few days before the return was processed on 12.03.2015 under Section 143(1) of the Act. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Formica India Division, Bombay, Burma Trading Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and others, 1995 Supp

New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed

ITA 2690/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) New Bombay Merchants Educational Acit (E),-2(2), Mumbai Foundation, Vs The Sugar Market Assc. 1St Floor, Central Facility Bldg Fam Market 1, Phase 2, Turbhe Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703. [Pan No. Aaatn2984J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pradeep Kapasi Ca Revenue By Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 18.04.2025 Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 246A

processing return of income of assessee. The CPC determined total income of Rs. 3.56 crore without issuing mandatory notice as required under section 143(1)(a) of proposed adjustment and seeking no objection of assessee. On downloading the order of CPC, the assessee realised that exemption/application under section

Mahakoshal Refractories Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6454/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahakoshal Refractories Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-15(1)(1), E-309, Crystal Plaza, Vs. Mumbai. Opposite Infinity Mall, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053. Pan : Aaecm4903B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-Panchkula[„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 16-10-2024, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assesseehas Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

income was made and the returned income as such was accepted, but the learned CIT(Appeals) took into account income intimated under section 143(1).” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assesseefiled its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.30,00,39,160/- which ... section 143(3) of the act, it is only that assessment order that may be enforced against the assesses. The intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) of the act, prior in time lost its effect and stood subsumed in the subsequent assessment order. Therefore, it could never be looked

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. National Institute of Opthalmology, Pune

In the result both revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 423/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.423/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dy. Commissioner Of National Institute Of Income Tax (Exemption), Opthalmology, Pune Vs. 1187/30 Shivajinagar, Off Ghole Road, Near Phule Museum, Pune-411005 Pan-Aaatn2580Q

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Munde
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "ए" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

Supermarket Grocery Supplies Private, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 275/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2021-22

For Appellant: Shri. Akshay, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

hold products, filed its return of income on 15.03.2022 declaring current year loss of Rs.308,48,84,692/-. While processing the return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 22.09.2022, there was variation of Rs.658,19,86,394/-. As a consequence, the returned loss was converted into income ... scrutiny since the proceedings got completed and no effect has been given to the errors appearing from record while issuing notice under section 143(1) of the Act and assessee was in consciousness that the assessee’s rectification application shall be accepted. The learned CIT(A) did not condone

Sameer Shrikant Pise, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 12, Pune

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

ITA 1078/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva - Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154

salary income of Rs. 36,67,617 (for employment exercised in the United Kingdom) in the Intimation is not a permissible adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). It is prayed that the position taken by the Appellant in the Return of Income ... hence, it is clearly a debateable issue and no adjustment in respect of debateable issues can be made in the Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act as held in the following Judicial Precedents relied upon during Appellate Proceedings before the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A): City Manager Association vs. DCIT

Pradeep Ramkrishna Rote, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1857/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

claimed refund of Rs.10,79,290/-. The return was processed by the Central Processing Center/Assessing Officer (“CPC/AO”) on 30.11.2021 under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) determining the total income at Rs.63,58,330/- by making an addition of Rs.53,11,870/- on account ... vide order dated 08.03.22 passed under section 154 of the Act without making any changes in the aforesaid intimation order earlier passed under section 143(1) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted before

Shri. Gajanan Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubballi

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

ITA 80/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act by way of an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act as the enabling provision Section 143(1)(a)(v)) was introduced by Finance Act, 2021 4. w.e.f1April2021andwasnotonthestatuteforimpugnedAY2019-20 5. The learned Commissioner of Income –tax ought to have appreciated that, on merits ... deduction is claimed under section 80P however return is not filed within due date”. Accordingly, return was processed on 13.07.2020 under section 143(1 a) of the Act and deduction was not allowed. Resultantly, a sum of Rs.1,65,90,100/- was determined as tax payable. 3. Aggrieved from

Samsung C and T Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2183/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 234B

143(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 23.03.2019 proposing adjustment of Rs.74,08,038/-, which was passed vide order under section 143(1) dated 30.03.2019. In this regard, by the additional ground, it is contended that the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 30.03.2019 was passed without providing ... Portal, nowhere suggested that the time limit of 30 days available to the assessee to submit its response as per second proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act was followed and it was held that such an intimation to the assessee was held

Excel Ind Employees Multipurpose Co-Op Society Ltd, Roha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Panvel

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1145/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1145/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Excel India Employees Multi V The Income Tax Officer, Purpose Co-Op Society Ltd., S Exemption Ward-1, Plot No.12, Ox-2, C/O.Excel Panvel. Industries Ltd., Midc Road, Dhatav, Midc Area, Roha Raigad – 402116. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabae1266G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri V.G.Ginde- Advocate & Shri Kumar Kale –Advocate Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl.Cit(A)/[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, For The A.Y.2018-19, Dated 01.10.2024 Emanating From Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act, Dated 25.06.2019. Ita No.1145/Pun/2025 [A]

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

present Case of the assessee though admittedly return was filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act but still section 143(1)(a)(v) is not applicable to the assessee since the case of the assessee is for A.Y. 2019-20, which is before the amendment ... also accept the argument of the ld. A.R for the assessee that even if the revenue intends to invoke clause (ii) of section 143(1)(a) that would also not be permissible since in the definition of incorrect claim as provided in the provision, the deduction

Income Tax Officer, Panipat vs. Dinesh Kaushik, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5753/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Dinesh Kaushik, Income Tax Officer, Panipat Vpo Baljattan, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Awjpk9483E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 263Section 28Section 45(5)

individual. He filed his return for AY 2018-19 on 29.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,35,470/-. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 28.06.2019. His case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment Scheme, 2019 on two issues, namely refund claim ... income from other sources and claimed deduction for 50% as per section 57(iv) of the 1961 Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. An application under section 264 was made claiming that by mistake the assessee treated the interest income as income from other

Aravali Buildhomes LLP, Jaipur vs. AO CPC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

10/07/2024 for assessment year 2021-22. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arise as against the order dated 02.11.2022 passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [ for short “Act”] by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore [for short AO]. 2 Aravali Buildhome ... assessee has filed its return of income declaring the total income of Rs. NIL on 31.03.2022 which was processed as per provision of section 143(1) of the Act on 02.11.2022. While processing that return the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 1

JCIT(in-Situ), Circle-1, Patna vs. Technoculture Building Centre Private Limited, Patna

ITA 41/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 145Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Himalayan Buddhist Cultural Association, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2299/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2023-24 Himalayan Buddhist Cultural Vs. Income Tax Officer, Association, New Delhi B-4, Ladakh Buddhist Vihara, Tarav Devi Colony, Bela Road, New Delhi Pan : Aaath1948L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Rajat Garg, Ca Department By Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Agra’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1074930213(1), dated 24.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee ... different provisions of law and different factual circumstances. 5.7 The appellant has argued that CPC could not have made the addition under section 143(1) as it is beyond the scope of processing. However, as per section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, adjustments can be made in respect

Shri Dhoraji Nagrik Sharafi and Grahak Sahkari Mandali Limited, Dhoraji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 478/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.478/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shri Dhoraji Nagrik Sharafi & Vs. Income Tax Officer Grahak Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward – 1(2)(1), C/O. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, 1St Rajkot. Floor, Dr. Radha – Krishnan Road, Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot- 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaad7775Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer, under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (herein after referred to as “the Act”), dated 25.06.2019. 2 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee ... return was filed beyond the time prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, the said adjustment does not fall in the scope of Section 143(1) of the Act, as there is neither an arithmetical error nor an incorrect claim apparent from the records. The ld Counsel also submitted that

Poloplus Containers, Surendranagar vs. Assisstant Director of I.T. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms,

ITA 437/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.436&437/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19&2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

income for the year under consideration was filed on 31" October 2018, declaring total income of Rs.9,19,070/-. The adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, in respect of which 30% of payments, on which TDS was not deducted under section ... amounting to Rs.2,57,795/-, was made in the order under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 13.05.2019, by the assessing officer ( CPC-assessing officer). 8. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer (CPC-assessing officer), the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before

Polo Plus Containers, Surendranagar vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms,

ITA 436/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.436&437/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19&2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

income for the year under consideration was filed on 31" October 2018, declaring total income of Rs.9,19,070/-. The adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, in respect of which 30% of payments, on which TDS was not deducted under section ... amounting to Rs.2,57,795/-, was made in the order under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 13.05.2019, by the assessing officer ( CPC-assessing officer). 8. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer (CPC-assessing officer), the assessee, carried the matter in appeal, before