UBER HEALTH TECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Uber Health Tech Private Limited, an entity engaged in developing software platforms for health and related products, filed its return of income on 29 September 2017, declaring a loss of ₹17,354,790. The case was selected for scrutiny, and a notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act was issued on 22 September 2019. The assessee did not respond to the notice, leading to a further notice under section 142(1) on 13 November 2019, which also went unanswered. A show-cause notice under section 144 was issued, but no response was filed. The Assessing Officer disallowed 30% of the expenses amounting to ₹6,420,188 due to lack of supporting details. Additionally, ₹63,951,505 was added under section 68 of the Income-tax Act for securities premium reserve. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order passed on 12 December 2019, which was dismissed by the CIT(A). The assessee then filed the present appeal before the ITAT.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act on 22 September 2019 was barred by limitation.
• 2. Whether the assessment order passed on 12 December 2019 is sustainable.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Pradipkumar Arvindbhai Kothari vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• Kuldip Kumar Goel vs. ACIT (1)(1)

  Delhi Bench ‘E’ benchAY 2012-13Partly Allowed

• Veena Singh vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Gwalior

  Agra bench

• Advaya Educational and Charitable Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)

  Bangalore bench

• Mukesh Jain vs. The ITO

  Jodhpur bench

• Zakia Begum vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2006-07Allowed