ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while processing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment order passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income computed u/s. 143(1). It is also

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

reassessment u/s. 147 read with\nsection 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while\nprocessing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed\nu/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment\norder passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income\ncomputed u/s. 143(1). It is also

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment u/s. 147 read with\nsection 143(3). Thus, the adjustment made by CPC Bengaluru, while\nprocessing the return u/s. 143(1) gets merged into the order passed\nu/s. 147 read with Section 143(3). What survives is the assessment\norder passed u/s. 147 read with Section 143(3) and not the income\ncomputed u/s. 143(1). It is also

SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

292C of the LT. Act, this bank account is to be treated as her own deposits. And, since these deposits were not accounted for in the books ITA No.6541 to 6546/Mum/2012 6 Smt. Sumanlata Bansal of the appellant and since the assessee has failed to explain the source of these deposits they are to be treated as Unexplained Investment U/s

MRS. SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result appeals bearing No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

292C of the LT. Act, this bank account is to be treated as her own deposits. And, since these deposits were not accounted for in the books of the appellant and since the assessee has failed to explain the source of these deposits they are to be treated as Unexplained Investment U/s. 69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly

MRS. SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result appeals bearing No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

292C of the LT. Act, this bank account is to be treated as her own deposits. And, since these deposits were not accounted for in the books of the appellant and since the assessee has failed to explain the source of these deposits they are to be treated as Unexplained Investment U/s. 69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly

MRS. SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result appeals bearing No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

292C of the LT. Act, this bank account is to be treated as her own deposits. And, since these deposits were not accounted for in the books of the appellant and since the assessee has failed to explain the source of these deposits they are to be treated as Unexplained Investment U/s. 69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly

MRS. SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result appeals bearing No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

292C of the LT. Act, this bank account is to be treated as her own deposits. And, since these deposits were not accounted for in the books of the appellant and since the assessee has failed to explain the source of these deposits they are to be treated as Unexplained Investment U/s. 69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly

MRS. SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result appeals bearing No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

292C of the LT. Act, this bank account is to be treated as her own deposits. And, since these deposits were not accounted for in the books of the appellant and since the assessee has failed to explain the source of these deposits they are to be treated as Unexplained Investment U/s. 69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly

MRS. SUMANLATA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result appeals bearing No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

292C of the LT. Act, this bank account is to be treated as her own deposits. And, since these deposits were not accounted for in the books of the appellant and since the assessee has failed to explain the source of these deposits they are to be treated as Unexplained Investment U/s. 69B of the Income-tax Act." He accordingly