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.

194 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 282clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi284Mumbai194Karnataka120Jaipur75Bangalore72Ahmedabad54Kolkata31Indore31Amritsar22Pune22Allahabad21Hyderabad19Chandigarh18Rajkot12Surat9Cochin6Nagpur5Patna5Dehradun3Visakhapatnam3Chennai2Ranchi1SC1Jodhpur1Telangana1Varanasi1Rajasthan1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)86Section 143(3)76Addition to Income75Penalty45Section 14736Section 69A34Section 153A31Section 6830Section 148

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2805/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 143(3) of the Act, no particular limb has been struck off (copy enclosed)” 7 ITA No.2803/M/2012, ITA No.2804/M/2012 & M/s. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. A.R. submitted that from the above chart it can be seen that for A.Y. 1997-98 the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section

Showing 1–20 of 194 · Page 1 of 10

...
27
Section 133(6)26
Disallowance26
Deduction15

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2804/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 143(3) of the Act, no particular limb has been struck off (copy enclosed)” 7 ITA No.2803/M/2012, ITA No.2804/M/2012 & M/s. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. A.R. submitted that from the above chart it can be seen that for A.Y. 1997-98 the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2803/MUM/2012[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 143(3) of the Act, no particular limb has been struck off (copy enclosed)” 7 ITA No.2803/M/2012, ITA No.2804/M/2012 & M/s. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. A.R. submitted that from the above chart it can be seen that for A.Y. 1997-98 the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7034/MUM/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

282 ITR, 642 (Gui), Padma Ram Bharali 110 ITR 54 (Gau), Thus, basis of satisfaction cannot be altered subsequently by IAC. CIT Vs. Kejriwal Iron Stones, 168 ITR 715 (Raj), 4.3.3 (b) At this stage, it is necessary to understand the distinction between the two charges on the basis of which penalty can be levied, i.e. (1) concealment of particulars

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7036/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

282 ITR, 642 (Gui), Padma Ram Bharali 110 ITR 54 (Gau), Thus, basis of satisfaction cannot be altered subsequently by IAC. CIT Vs. Kejriwal Iron Stones, 168 ITR 715 (Raj), 4.3.3 (b) At this stage, it is necessary to understand the distinction between the two charges on the basis of which penalty can be levied, i.e. (1) concealment of particulars

ORBIT CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years i

ITA 7035/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80I

282 ITR, 642 (Gui), Padma Ram Bharali 110 ITR 54 (Gau), Thus, basis of satisfaction cannot be altered subsequently by IAC. CIT Vs. Kejriwal Iron Stones, 168 ITR 715 (Raj), 4.3.3 (b) At this stage, it is necessary to understand the distinction between the two charges on the basis of which penalty can be levied, i.e. (1) concealment of particulars

NAVNITLAL K PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6820/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2004-05 Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh, Acit, F-2, 77 & 78 Gujrati Society Cc-45, बनाम/ Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400057 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaccp6245F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shailesh Parmar Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: Mr. Navnitlal K. Parikh

Section 139Section 15Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

u/s 171(1)(c) cannot be imposed.” 6 In view of the above decisions of the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal as well as in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we cancel the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the I T Act. 7 In the result, he appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

NANDKISHOR & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-firm in ITA N0

ITA 8644/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8644/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Nandkishore & Co., Acit 4(2), बनाम/ Unit No. 208/209, 6 Th Floor, V. Wadala Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Next To Wadala Telephone M.K. Road, Exchange, Mumbai- 400020. Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 031. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafn5385K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh(D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 94(7)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated by the AO against the assessee-firm for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The assessee-firm submitted before the ITA 8644/Mum/2011 3 A.O. that there was no gross or willful neglect and there is no mens rea on the part of the assessee-firm

P.K. JOSHUA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4489/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271 (1 )(c) of the act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the penalty on Rs.23,101/- being the gifts received in India and are not gifts from the foreign country. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

P.K. JOSHUA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4491/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271 (1 )(c) of the act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the penalty on Rs.23,101/- being the gifts received in India and are not gifts from the foreign country. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

P.K. JOSHUA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4490/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271 (1 )(c) of the act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the penalty on Rs.23,101/- being the gifts received in India and are not gifts from the foreign country. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

P.K. JOSHUA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4487/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271 (1 )(c) of the act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the penalty on Rs.23,101/- being the gifts received in India and are not gifts from the foreign country. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

P.K. JOSHUA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4488/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 271 (1 )(c) of the act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the penalty on Rs.23,101/- being the gifts received in India and are not gifts from the foreign country. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VINAMRA UNIVERSAL TRADERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2018/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Dy. C.I.T. – 8(3)(2) M/S. Vinamra Universal Room No. 615, 6Th Floor Traders Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Jai Centre, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 34, P. D’Mello Rd., Opp. Red Gate Mumbai 400009 Pan – Aaccv5090J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja & Shri S.K. PodarFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Mehta & Shri Govind Javeri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and prayed that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty be upheld. 4.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. In the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) after considering the assessee’s submissions

ROBIN BIPIN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Mr. Robin Bipin Mehta Vs. Acit- Cc-20, Mumbai – 3, Deepak, 1St Floor, 401, 400 021 S.V.Road, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400 056 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm8343D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act namely concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The notice issued 271 r.w.s. 274 of the Act is in a standard proforma and the AO has not striked out non-applicable clauses therein. Thus, AO has invoked both the limbs i.e. concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate

ITO11(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. S.K. OFFICE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6250/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6250/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer-11(2)(1) M/S. S.K. Office Solutions Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Flat No. 19, 3Rd Floor Room No.425, Aaykar Bhavan M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Lalita Society, Gokhale Road Vs. Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 049. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-1006-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Chaudhary Arun Kumar- Ld.Dr Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala-Ld. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ : 08/07/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2010-11 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar- Ld.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/ notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

section 112 of the I.T. Act. iv. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the direction of ld. the CIT(A) to the A.O to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on account of long term capital gain offered by the assessee on structured product assessee does not violate

ALLIED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MALAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 30 (1) (1), BANDRA

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

ITA 4121/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Allied Construction Ito-30(1)(1), Company, C-13, 5Th Floor, 4&5, Sai Zarukha Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B.J. Patel Road, Bandra East, Malad (West), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. Pan : Aapfa8255N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jose Pulikkoden Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jose PulikkodenFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) are quasi-criminal in nature, and in the absence of any material to establish contumacious conduct, deliberate falsity, or intention to mislead the tax authorities, the confirmation of penalty is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 9. That the CIT(A) has failed to consider the settled legal position that penalty cannot be sustained

CHITRALEKHA,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.- 17(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 6849/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6849/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Chitralekha Asstt. Commissioner Of 25, Andheri Industrial Estate Income Tax -17(1) बनाम/ Near Janki Centre Room No.117 Vs. Off Veera Desai Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafc-1152-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.Ar Respondent By : Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 19/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), submitted that Ld. AO failed to frame a specific charge against the assessee and therefore the penalty proceedings stood vitiated on legal grounds. Reliance has been placed on the following judicial pronouncements for these submissions: - No. Title Rendered by Citation 1. Shri Samson Perincherry Hon’ble Bombay High Court

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

ITA 2836/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar
Section 143(3)Section 263

282 (SC), CIT v. Mangal Castings, 303 ITR 23 (P&H) and CIT v. MEPCO Industries Ltd., 294 ITR 121 (Mad.). In reply to the notice dated 06.12.2012 u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee company submitted that both on merits as well as on technical grounds the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 passed u/s