BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

68 results for “TDS”+ Section 156clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi565Mumbai362Bangalore289Raipur119Chennai93Karnataka87Kolkata79Pune76Ahmedabad73Hyderabad68Cochin68Chandigarh50Jaipur45Lucknow21Kerala17Surat16Visakhapatnam14Dehradun11Allahabad10Agra8Indore8Cuttack8SC6Himachal Pradesh6Amritsar6Jabalpur5Telangana5Rajkot3Varanasi3Guwahati2Patna2Rajasthan1Panaji1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income57Section 13247Search & Seizure45Section 139(1)39Section 153C38Section 6938Section 14824Section 143(3)20Section 14A17Disallowance

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1237/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2022-23
For Appellant: \nShri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: \nShri K. Vinoth Kannan
Section 154Section 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 250Section 311

TDS), CPC.\n22. Apropos, the interest under section 220(2) of the Act, we are of the view\nthat as the same flows from the failure on the part of the assessee company to\ndeposit the amount specified in the notice of demand under section 156

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4

12
Section 148A11
Double Taxation/DTAA9

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

ITA 1236/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 250Section 311

TDS), CPC. 22. Apropos, the interest under section 220(2) of the Act, we are of the view that as the same flows from the failure on the part of the assessee company to deposit the amount specified in the notice of demand under section 156

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1311/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 37(1)

TDS credits. Hence, the addition of Rs. 92,069/-is sustained. 5.4. The appellant has raised several grounds 5.4. The against the addition of Unexplained Investment u/s 69B at Rs.19,54,348/- The AO made an addition of Rs. 19,54,348/- as unexplained time deposits since no source was explained during the assessment proceedings. The appellant contends that these

FRONTIERS INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 744/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2015-16 Frontiers Infra Projects India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcf 3873 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Sri P. Suresh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am:

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri P. Suresh, DR
Section 156Section 200ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 234E

section 156 of the Act U/s. 201(1) of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds on legality, non-adjudication of the ground of appeal as raised on the issue is deemed to have allowed. 5. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground No.3 being the charge

SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADIT (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1401/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1401/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sheladia Associates Inc. Vs. Adit (International Secunderabad Taxation)-2 Pan : Aafcs7792F Hyderabad

For Appellant: Smt.V.Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 270ASection 40Section 44C

TDS u/s 195 of the Act. The assessee challenged the proposed disallowance before the DRP and also furnished some additional details and supporting evidence on which, the DRP called for a remand report from the AO. After considering the remand report, the DRP rejected the objections filed by the assessee and consequently, final assessment order was passed

SUKESINI KUMILI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1539/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 153

TDS Statement Interest other than interest on securities (Section 194A) ANDHRA\nBANK, SITAPHALMANDI BR. 5 AMOUNT PAID OR CREDITED 31,890\n7.\n3. On the basis of above information, which reveals that the income chargeable to tax,\nrepresented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amount to the tune of\nRupees more than 50 lakhs, for the year

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-14(2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1524/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1524/Hyd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10) Madhucon Projects Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 14(2) Pan:Aabcm4757 Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 156Section 194CSection 201(1)

TDS in respect of the alleged payments and also remitted to the govt. account except an amount of Rs.40,495/-. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that even the Assessing Officer has issued a notice u/s 156 dated 26/09/2019 whereby raised the demand of Rs.40,495/- which shows that the assessee has already complied with the provisions of section

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

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

ITA 307/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate and Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

TDS, the ground no.9 of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs.5,73,480/- under section 40A(3) of the Act and the ground no. 10 of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs.11,67,82,251/- on account of assets written off. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that all the aforesaid amounts were duly reported

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 285/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate and Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

TDS, the ground no.9 of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs.5,73,480/- under section 40A(3) of the Act and the ground no. 10 of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs.11,67,82,251/- on account of assets written off. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that all the aforesaid amounts were duly reported

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. JAYA BALAJEE REAL MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the C

ITA 3/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. C. I.T. Vs. Jaya Balajee Real Media Central Circle 2(3) P Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecb3005 F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.3/Hyd/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3/Hyd/2020) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaya Balajee Real Media P Vs. Dy. C. I.T. Ltd, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aaecb3005 F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.10.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Has Also Filed A C.O No.3/Hyd/2020 Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 153ASection 40Section 68

TDS has not been deducted, the assessee has voluntarily disallowed Rs.4,79,25,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) in the computation of income and the balance amount of Rs.7,87,07,668/- was not disallowed. So far as the submission of the assessee that the deductees’ have offered the amount for taxation in their respective returns in the relevant A.Ys

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 683/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.67,85,773/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 681/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.67,85,773/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 685/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.67,85,773/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 682/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.67,85,773/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 684/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

TDS has been deducted on the said interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest debited under finance charges and carried forward to work-in-progress amounting to Rs.67,85,773/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before

BSCPL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1817/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Pan – Aaacb 8316K Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80I

TDS with interest at a _ prescribed rate and therefore it is not a violative and prohibitive under explanation 1 of 37(1) and as per settled case law "2016-TT]-175, Pg:-81, Gillco developers & Builders (P) Ltd Vs DCIT(Chd). 2. The assessee also filed the following additional ground relying on the decision of National Thermal Power

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next to PG College. Secunderabad-500 026. PAN : AANFV0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR Date of hearing: 15.03.2023 Date of pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue, feeling aggrieved

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD., HYDERABAD

ITA 1873/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

156\nTaxmann.com 178 has quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of\nthe I.T. Act, because certain procedures were not followed by\nthe Income Tax Department while issuing the notice. He has\nalso relied upon the decision of the Bangalore Benches of the\nTribunal dated 30.04.2025 in case of Dandu Jojappa Francis\nvs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.2305/Bang/2024 and\nsubmitted

SANJAY GARUDAPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 13/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

section 153C. In view of the above, the provisions of section 153C(1) are to be invoked for AY 2013 14 to 2018-19 and u/s 143(3) for AY 2019-20. As per the provisions of section 153C Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned

PARIGE VENKAT RAM REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 18/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

section 153C. In view of the above, the provisions of section 153C(1) are to be invoked for AY 2013 14 to 2018-19 and u/s 143(3) for AY 2019-20. As per the provisions of section 153C Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned