← 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)

Alok Dadu, Modi Nagar vs. Addljcit(A)-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 613/LKW/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 Alok Dadu V. The Ito-2(4) H. No.310, Gali No.3 Pilibhit Bharampuri Modi Nagar Tan/Pan:Acdod4702B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(c)

income for the year under consideration on 13.10.2022, declaring a total income of Rs.22,01,714/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) to the assessee on the ground that there was a mismatch of expenditure ... assessee and added the amount of Rs.6,83,290/- to the income of the assessee. The AO accordingly completed the assessment under section 143(1) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.28,85,005/-. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First

Kag India Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Circle -2, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 263Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)Section 271(1)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबीटीवक", "याियकसद"यएवं"ी एस. आर.रघुनाथा

Bird Execujet Airport Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1017/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

submitted as under :- “A. The disallowance made by CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1)(a) and, therefore, the disallowance made merits deletion - In this case, CPC vide order dated 06-06-2020 has made an adjustment u/s 143 ... envisaged u/s 143(1). In this regard it is submitted as under: (1) Scope of Adjustment u/s 143(1 )(a)(iv) - Provisions of section 143(1 )(a)(iv) as applicable to the year under consideration merely provided for an adjustment in respect of "disallowance of expenditure" indicated in the audit

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1010/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

submitted as under :- “A. The disallowance made by CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1)(a) and, therefore, the disallowance made merits deletion - In this case, CPC vide order dated 06-06-2020 has made an adjustment u/s 143 ... envisaged u/s 143(1). In this regard it is submitted as under: (1) Scope of Adjustment u/s 143(1 )(a)(iv) - Provisions of section 143(1 )(a)(iv) as applicable to the year under consideration merely provided for an adjustment in respect of "disallowance of expenditure" indicated in the audit

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1009/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

submitted as under :- “A. The disallowance made by CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1)(a) and, therefore, the disallowance made merits deletion - In this case, CPC vide order dated 06-06-2020 has made an adjustment u/s 143 ... envisaged u/s 143(1). In this regard it is submitted as under: (1) Scope of Adjustment u/s 143(1 )(a)(iv) - Provisions of section 143(1 )(a)(iv) as applicable to the year under consideration merely provided for an adjustment in respect of "disallowance of expenditure" indicated in the audit

Shree Sidh Balaji Sakh Sahkarita Maryadit, Ujjain vs. Asst Director CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Indore10 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2019-20 Shree Sidh Balaji Sakh Assistant Director Cpc, Sahkarita Maryadit, Bangalore बनाम/ Ramghat Marg, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaja57480G Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H.Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2024

Section 119(2)(a)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

contention that the AO had no authority to make the impugned disallowance in the intimation u/s 143(1) because the provision of section 143(1) exiting at that time, did not permit such disallowance for AY 2019-20 involved in present appeal. This issue is elaborately dealt and decided ... 1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. On going through the statutory provisions, we observe that 80AC of the Act provides that no such deduction under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalyan vs. Omkar Speciality Chemical S Ltd, Badlapur Midc

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 2243/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Kalyan, Vs. Omkar Speciality 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza Wayle Nagar, Chemicals Ltd, Khadakpada, Kalyan West, B-34 Midc, Badlapur, Thane, Maharashtra - 421301 Maharashtra - 421503 Pan: Aaaco7311D

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 35Section 4Section 40Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Mulkh Raj Mehta and Sons HUF, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2406/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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 ... deduction for 50% as 9 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons HUF 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

Rani Laxmibai Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat. Ltd., Jamner, Dist-Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1336/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1336/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vinay V. KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 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

Monalisa Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 4012/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. B R Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

respect of interest income of Rs. 13,53,098 earned from Co-operative Banks while processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) 2. In holding that this was a permissible addition u/s 143(1)(a)(il) of the Act by treating it as incorrect claim which is apparent from

Satara Education Society, Satara vs. DCIT (E) Circle, Pune

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

ITA 1054/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1054/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Satara Education Society, Vs. Dcit (E) Circle, Pune. 148, Mangalwar Peth, Satara City, Tetali B.O., Tetali, Satara- 415002. Pan : Aabts9280K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari : Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Laws & On Facts In Confirming The Appellant'S Income Assessed By The Learned Ao Amounting To Rs.11,68,77,245/- Instead Of Returned Income Of "Nil" As Declared By Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 44A

without issuing any notice for proposed adjustment and without granting opportunity to appellant to respond to the notice as per provision of section 143(1)(a) of the ITA, 1961; thereby violating the principal of natural justice. As such, the appellant contends that the order passed u/s 143(1

Shilpa Steel and Powers Ltd, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur

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

ITA 317/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

return of income was electronically filed on 03/10/2018, declaring total income of ` 38,22,84,980. The communication of proposed adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) 3 Shilpa Steel And Power Ltd. dated 17/03/2019, was issued for which a reply was filed ... 09/04/2019 electronically, opposing the proposed adjustment with reasons. Later, return of income was processed and intimation under section 143(1) dated 01/10/2019 was issued. In the said intimation, addition of ` 26,49,199, was made on account of late payment of contribution received from Employees for Provident Fund and State

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm..of Incometax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(7)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

The Market Reserch Society of India, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5088/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234B

case and in law, availability of exemption under section 11 of the Act cannot be decided by the CPC in an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act or order under section 154 of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in not providing intimation in writing or electronic mode with respect to proposed adjustment in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in lave, the CPC as well as the M. CTT(A) erred in taxing gross

M/S. Bakshi Security & Personnel Services P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4266/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal disregarding the bonafide and genuine submissions with regard to applicability of the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) & claim of Employees' PF & ESIC Contribution payment under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. (2) On the facts and circumstances ... learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that – (i) the provision of section 143(1)(a)(ii) was not applicable to the debatable issues as such, and therefore, the alleged claim was allowable under the provisions of section 43B of the Act; and (ii) in view of the judgment

Nishant Choudhary, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Fatehabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2863/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2863/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nishant Choudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary, Choudhary Ward-1, Niwas, G.T. Road (Opp. Ratia Fatehabad, Crossing), Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 Haryana-125050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aempc0965Q Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana Dated 13.02.2019 In Case No. 255/Rot/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28

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

Idfc Financial Holding Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2(2), Hennai

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

ITA 241/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan K. Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234C

115JB of the Act since it was higher than taxes payable as per the normal provisions. The RoI was processed by CPC under section 143(1) of the Act (Intimation) and the CPC enhanced the interest u/s.234C of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,48,04,175/- whereas assessee

Km Educational and Rural Development Trust, Vembakottai vs. ITO, Exemptions, Madurai

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

ITA 1326/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 10BSection 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Aquagel Promoter Group Shareholders Trust, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, CPC, Bengalore Current Jao the ITO, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 54/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

separate appellate orders both dated 15.12.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi arising out of the intimation orders passed under section 143(1)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2019-20. Since identical ... No.1348/Ahd/2017 and No.553/Ahd/2018 vide order dated 02.06.2020 and also not justifying the ground that such disallowance cannot be done under section 143(1) proceedings. Thus, the Ld. Senior Counsel prayed that the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. 6. Per Contra, the Ld.DR Shri Sudhendu

Aquagel Promoter Group Shareholders Trust, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, CPC, Bangalore Current Jao the ITO, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 53/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

separate appellate orders both dated 15.12.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi arising out of the intimation orders passed under section 143(1)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2019-20. Since identical ... No.1348/Ahd/2017 and No.553/Ahd/2018 vide order dated 02.06.2020 and also not justifying the ground that such disallowance cannot be done under section 143(1) proceedings. Thus, the Ld. Senior Counsel prayed that the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be quashed. 6. Per Contra, the Ld.DR Shri Sudhendu