“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)

Balaji Shrushti Chs Ltd, Panvel vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Panvel

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

ITA 524/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.523 & 524/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Balaji Shrushti Chs Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Panvel. Ground Floor, Plot No.3, Sector 19, New Panvel Navi Mumbai- 410206. Pan : Aaaab8345G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A) Addl/Jcit (A), Prayagraj For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.523/Pun/2024 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

decision to disallow the appellant's deduction claim under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act.” 7. Being aggrieved by the order of LD Addl/JCIT(A), the appellant assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. When the matter

Balaji Shrushti Chs Ltd, New Panvel vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Panvel

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

ITA 523/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

The Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata Parsi High School Trust, Nagpur vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 377/NAG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 11Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

dated 20/03/2023; wherein it has been held that “Without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee/proper notice for adjustment through applying section 143(1)(a), no alteration in the returned figures can be done by CPC,Bangalore. In this appeal we observed that this basic provision

Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

materials available on record. It is apparent from the Ld. NFAC order when the assessee has clearly pointed out the amendment in Section 143(1) made by Finance Act, 2021 which is not applicable for the present assessment year 2019-2020. However the same was not been considered ... 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

Joyo Plastics, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-24 (1)

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

ITA 4405/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Joyo Plastics, Acit Circle-24(1), 104, Jai Antariksh Co-Op Society, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Chamber, Lalbaug, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaafj 0286 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 : 13/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

thus the AO was not authorised to invoke section 37(1) of the Act, thus the AO was not authorised to invoke section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) he contrary ... Officer following the provisions of ted that the Assessing Officer following the provisions of ted that the Assessing Officer following the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act communicated the assessee for the section 143(1) of the Act communicated the assessee section 143(1) of the Act communicated

Pg 1 Nochikuttai Primary Agricultural Coop Bank Ltd, Nochikuttai vs. Income Tax Officer, Erode

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

ITA 1498/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1498/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Pg 1 Nochikuttai Primary – The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Ward-2(5), No.489, Punjai Puliampatti Road, Erode. Nochikuttai, Sathyamangalam, Erode-638 459. [Pan: Aaaap 1806 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Shriram AdhethyenFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80

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

Mogulkata Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 201/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष

Palsons Derma Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 198/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 198/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Palsons Derma Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 10/D/1, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani Vs Circle – 11(1), Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp5629D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter The “Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dt. 26/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Grievance Raised In Ground No. 1 Is That The Ld. First Appellate Authority Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 675 Days In Filing Of The Appeal & Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal As Non-Maintainable. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay As Arisen Because After Receiving Intimation U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act, Rectification Filed U/S 154 Of The Act Was Rejected & In The Meantime, Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dealing With The Issues Arising Out Of The Intimation

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Moog Motion Controls Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court on a debatable and controversial issue which is beyond the scope of adjustment under section 143(1). 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing. the intimation u/s 143(1) passed ... judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court on a debatable and controversial issue which is beyond the scope of adjustment under section 143(1). 29. The details of remittance of employees’ contribution towards PF, as disallowed by CPC in the intimation u/s 143(1), is tabulated below for reference: Particulars

Markolines Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 366/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

proposed adjustment was not granted to the assessee. Accordingly, as per the assessee, since no prior intimation as required under proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act is issued, the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act is bad in law. Since this issue raised ... During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that no intimation/communication, as is required under proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act, was given to the assessee about the proposed Markolines Infra Pvt. Ltd. CO. No.16/Mum/2022 ITAs No. 366 & 1170/Mum/2023 addition/adjustments to the return of income

Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd., Belapur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-15(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1170/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

proposed adjustment was not granted to the assessee. Accordingly, as per the assessee, since no prior intimation as required under proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act is issued, the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act is bad in law. Since this issue raised ... During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR") submitted that no intimation/communication, as is required under proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act, was given to the assessee about the proposed Page | 6 Markolines Infra Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.2967/Mum/2022 CO. No.16/Mum/2022 ITAS No. 366 & 1170/Mum/2023 addition/adjustments

ACIT-15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2967/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

proposed adjustment was not granted to the assessee. Accordingly, as per the assessee, since no prior intimation as required under proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act is issued, the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act is bad in law. Since this issue raised ... During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR") submitted that no intimation/communication, as is required under proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act, was given to the assessee about the proposed Page | 6 Markolines Infra Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.2967/Mum/2022 CO. No.16/Mum/2022 ITAS No. 366 & 1170/Mum/2023 addition/adjustments

Vinay Grover, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), New Delhi

Adopted the sales amounting to Rs

ITA 3206/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Indus Towers Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2172/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 08.06.2023 arising from the intimation order dated 03.02.2021 passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2019-20. 2. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel ... under Section 250 of the Act and submitted that the CIT(A) had declined to adjudicate issues arising from the intimation drawn under Section 143(1) of the Act on the ground that the impugned issues arising from the intimation shall be adjudicated based on the merits of the case

M/S Barnala Builders and Consultant, Zirakpur vs. DCIT/ACIT (Cen)-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 274/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

return of income declaring total income of Rs. 79,00,220/- on 06/10/2018. The return was processed by the CPC and order under section 143(1) dt. 19/11/2019 was passed wherein the disallowance Rs. 2,46,952/- invoking the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) was made for fault ... amendment to the provision which apply retrospectively. It was accordingly held that the disallowance of Rs. 2,46,952/- made under section 143(1) by the CPC on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employees contribution of PF / ESI within the prescribed due date as per the Section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Sandvik Coromant India Pvt Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1072/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1072/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dy.Commissioner Of Sandvik Coromant India Pvt. Income Tax, Circle-8, Vs Ltd., Pune. Mumbai Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs6638K Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection No.7/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sandvik Coromant India The Dy.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. Mumbai Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs6638K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Patakh – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Ita 1072/Pn/2023 Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Co No.7/Pun/2024 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] U/S.250 Of The Act, For A.Y.2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 43B

C.O.No.7/PUN/2024 [A] M/s.Sandvik Coromant India Private Limited dated 11.08.2023 emanating from the order of ld.Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC under section 143(1) of the Act, for A.Y.2018-19dated25.02.2020. Also, the assessee is before us as a Cross-Objector for the aforementioned year. The Revenue in ITA No.1072/PUN/2023 ... invalid since no such adjustment can be made under sub clauses (i) to sub clause (vi) of sub section (a) of section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence, the addition made is not justified at all.” Brief facts of the case : 3. In this case, assessee

Gurpalsingh Chanansingh Nagra, Akola vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 206/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(1)

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18, emanating out of the return of income processed under section 143(1) by the Central Processing Centre on 27/03/2019. 2. During the course of hearing, we find that there is a delay of 203 days ... which either no response was received or the response given was not acceptable as a result of which the CPC passed order under section 143(1) of the Act on 27/03/2019, making the adjustment of the variance amount to the total income of the assessee. 8. Before the learned

Goribi Abdul Karim Nadaf, Pune vs. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Addl JCIT (A) -1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 517/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

stressed that the action of the AO in making the extant disallowance does not fall in any of the clauses of section 143(1). 7. We fully agree with the proposition bolstered by the ld. AR that adjustment to the total income or loss can be made only ... clauses. The rival parties are consensus ad idem that the case can be considered as falling either under clause (ii) or (iv) of section 143(1). For ready reference, we are extracting the relevant provision as under: ‘143. (1) Where a return has been made under section

Goribi Abdul Karim Nadaf, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl JCIT (A) 1 - Ahmedabad, Addl/JCIT (A) Ahmedabad

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

ITA 516/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Majhaulia Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1375/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1375/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Majhaulia Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd.,….….Appellant 10, Camac Street, 15Th Floor, Kolkata-700017, West Bengal [Pan:Aajcm8867F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-10(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri B.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

this payment as compensatory in nature, which ought to have been allowed it. 4. The ld. Assessing Officer while processing the return under section 143(1) disallowed this claim of the assessee and appeal to the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-12, Mumbai did not bring any relief to the assessee ... Appellate Authority, the assessee has explained that the scope of disallowance ought to have been made by the CPC under section 143(1). The assessee has made reference to Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2008 as well as Finance Bill, 2016. These submissions have been noticed by the ld. Addl./JCIT