SRI PANATI VIDYANATH REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE
In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 1148/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2023AY 2019-20
Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.
For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)
section 143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictional High Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that "Where a return
