293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal

295 ITR 105High Court2007#1033 most cited
105

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,444 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal · 293 ITR 43 · Delhi High Court · Section 153A · Section 153C · Section 132(4) statement · Section 68 cash credits · Section 69C unexplained expenditure · evidentiary value · burden of proof · search assessment · natural justice principles

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 143(2)Section 69CSection 132Section 132(4)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 115adsection 2(1a)section 2(1)section 66section 36(i)(va)section 153a proceedingssection 60section 63section 2(14)(iii)section 35(1)(ii)section 115atrue and full disclosure

Judgments citing 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 180/JODH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/s Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. PAN No. AAGCA 9897 C Revenue by Smt. Sanchita Kumar, CIT-DR Assessee by Shri Shrawan Gupta, Adv. Date of Hearing 11/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement 15/09/2021 O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. Both these appeals have been filed by the revenue against the separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur dated 18/02/2016 and 05/07/2016 for…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…nder: ―Initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of deposition of a third party without affording opportunity of cross-examination of the said party to the assessee despite specific demand was not valid.‖  CIT Vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 105 (Del): Held as under: ―A.O not having given an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine the analyst on whose report the assessment was based despite several requests, assessment was rightly set aside by the C.I.T.(A) and Tribunal for violation of principles of natural justice and no substantial question of law arose.‖  CIT Vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…nder: ―Initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of deposition of a third party without affording opportunity of cross-examination of the said party to the assessee despite specific demand was not valid.‖  CIT Vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 105 (Del): Held as under: ―A.O not having given an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine the analyst on whose report the assessment was based despite several requests, assessment was rightly set aside by the C.I.T.(A) and Tribunal for violation of principles of natural justice and no substantial question of law arose.‖  CIT Vs. A.N. Dyaneswaran…

DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Prb Securities Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR
Section 143(3)

…ve cross examined with the appellate to collect the evidence in the matter, which has not been done in the case. Thus the AO has failed to discharge his duties. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of in the case of Dharam Pal Prern Chand Ltd reported in 295 ITR 105; while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue has held as under (page 108): There is no doubt that even if the strict rules of evidence may not apply, the basic principles of natural justice would apply to the facts of the case. The Assessing Officer placed reliance upon the report of the Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research for decidin…

Varsha Aggarwal, G B Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-39(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 4484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…le Supreme Court of India in the case Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 at page no. 714; Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 396 and CIT vs. Pradeep Gupta 303 ITR 95 and CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. 295 ITR 105. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Courts are reproduced as under:- “125 ITR 713, Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (Supreme Court), in which at page 714, it was held as under: ‘‘The statements of the manager in those two letters were based on hearsay, as in the absence of evidence, it could not be taken that he must have been in charge of th…

Subhash Chand Aggarwal, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward- 39(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 4483/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…le Supreme Court of India in the case Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 at page no. 714; Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 396 and CIT vs. Pradeep Gupta 303 ITR 95 and CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. 295 ITR 105. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Courts are reproduced as under:- “125 ITR 713, Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (Supreme Court), in which at page 714, it was held as under: ‘‘The statements of the manager in those two letters were based on hearsay, as in the absence of evidence, it could not be taken that he must have been in charge of th…

Rakhi Goyal, G B Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-39(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 4482/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…le Supreme Court of India in the case Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 at page no. 714; Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 396 and CIT vs. Pradeep Gupta 303 ITR 95 and CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. 295 ITR 105. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Courts are reproduced as under:- “125 ITR 713, Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (Supreme Court), in which at page 714, it was held as under: ‘‘The statements of the manager in those two letters were based on hearsay, as in the absence of evidence, it could not be taken that he must have been in charge of th…

Ajay Goel, G B Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-39(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 4481/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…le Supreme Court of India in the case Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 at page no. 714; Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 396 and CIT vs. Pradeep Gupta 303 ITR 95 and CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. 295 ITR 105. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Courts are reproduced as under:- “125 ITR 713, Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (Supreme Court), in which at page 714, it was held as under: ‘‘The statements of the manager in those two letters were based on hearsay, as in the absence of evidence, it could not be taken that he must have been in charge of th…

Santosh Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

In the result this issue is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 1162/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Santosh Suresh Kumar Agarwal...........…………….………………………………………..……….……..Appellant C/O M.C. Jagwayan & Co. 46, Kali Krishna Tagore Street 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Adhpa 0744 M] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-36, Kolkata......…........……….…..……...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nitin Jagwayan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sital Chandra Das, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10 Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 01/03/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Consideration Is The Disallowance Of Rs.11 Lakhs, Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of A Donation Of Rs.11 Lakhs Made By The Assessee To “The School Of Human Genetics & Population Health”, An Institute Approved By The Central Government Vide Notification No. 4/2010 Dated 28Th January, 2009. The Assessing Officer As Well As The Ld. Cit(A), Did Not Allow This Claim Of The Assessee For The Various Reasons Given At Pages 24 To 31 Of The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order. The Reasons Given By The Revenue Authorities In This Case Is The Same As In The Case Of The Narbheram Vishram Vs. Dcit In Ita No. 42 & 43/Kol/2018; Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15, Orderdt. 27/07/2018

Section 12ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…ng and the Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of cross-examination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del).We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition wasupheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017,for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: “10…..Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oath…

Narbheram Vishram, Jharkhand vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 43/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.42 & 43/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 &2014-15) Narbheramvishram Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata Gua, Singhbhum West, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110, Jharkhan-833213. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfn 7217 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca& Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate. Respondent By : Md. Usman, Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA& Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35(1)(ii)

…ng and the Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of cross-examination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del).We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition wasupheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017,for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: “10…..Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oath…

Narbheram Vishram, Jharkhand vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 42/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.42 & 43/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 &2014-15) Narbheramvishram Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata Gua, Singhbhum West, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110, Jharkhan-833213. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfn 7217 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca& Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate. Respondent By : Md. Usman, Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA& Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35(1)(ii)

…ng and the Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of cross-examination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del).We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition wasupheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017,for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: “10…..Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oath…

Vegesna Ananthankoti Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. Dy CIT, (International Taxation), Viskhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 528/VIZ/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR

…ITA No.528/Vizag/2017 Sri Vegesna Ananthakoti Raju, VSKP आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी वी. दुगा"राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ड.एस. . . . सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.528/Vizag/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sri Vegesna Ananthakoti Raju DCIT (International Visakhapatnam Transactions) Visakhapatnam [PAN No.AFTPV6702Q] (अपीलाथ' / Appellant) (()याथ' / Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…Case law Page 1 CIT v/s Bhanwar Lal Murwatiya (2008) 39 Tax World 214 (Raj.) 82 2 SCIT v/s M/s Swastik Enterpriss, Udaipur (ITA No. 329/JU/2008) & Ors 82-84 3 Prakash Chand Nahata v/s CIT. (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) 84 4 CIT v/s Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 105 (Delhi) 85 5 CIT v/s SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Delhi) 85 6 CTO, Anit Evasion, Zone Jaipur v/s Haryana Dal Mill. (1993) 90 STC (Raj.) 519 85 7 Anil Kumar mahipal v/s ITO (2006) 35 Tax World 33 (JD) 86 Laxmanbhai S. Patel v/s CIT Oct. 15,2008 114 ITD 8 86-87 (ITR No. 41 of 1997 dated 22.7.2008) (Guj.) 9 ITO v/s Permanand. (2007) 10…

M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6251/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 41, Pocket–Ii, Jasola, Vs. Ward : 6 (3), D E L H I – 110 025. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm 3622 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Gudrun Nehra, Sr. D. R
Section 147

…hand ii. Nursing Das Vs. Settlement Commission reported in 176 ITR 169 at page 174. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ashwani Gupta iii. 322 ITR 396 (Del); J.T. (India) Exports Vs. Union of India iv. 262 ITR 269 (Del) (FB) CIT vs Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. v. 295 ITR 105(Del) CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta vi. 207 CTR 115. ” 3.1 The ld. AR also referred page Nos. 15 to 22, 37 and 38, 40 to 66, 103 to 146 of the paper book, which are copies of letter from Income Tax Officer communicating reasons recorded for initiating proceedings under section 147, objections raised to the reasons, the order of the Assessing Offic…

Oleander Farms P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4966/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Transfer Of File To The Ao Of The Assessee. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused.

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bahadur
Section 10(34)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…(SC) (ii) CIT v. Ashwani Gupta [322 lTR 396 (Del) (iii) ClT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. [288 lTR 345 (Del) (iv) Tin Box Co. v. ClT [249 lTR 216 (SC) (v) Gargi Mall Mohata & Co. v. A. V. Vishwanath Sastri [96 lTR 97 (All) (vi) ClT v. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [295 ITR 105 (Del)] (vii) Rakesh Kapadia v. DClT [48 lTD 283, 289 (Ahd) 36. It was vehemently argued by learned A.R. that on making enquiries with ROC, it was found that these companies have been regularly filing their returns, reports, etc. which clearly indicate that these companies are not defunct. Thus, the report of ADIT(lnv) relied upon by the Assessing…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 892/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle – 9, Old CGO, Mumbai Appellant Vs. M/s. Shreepati Computer Centre, 7/8, Raghavji Bldg., 15/17, Raghavji Road, Gawalia Tank, Mumbai 400 036 Respondent & ITA. Nos. 889 to 892/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04) M/s. Shreepati Computer Centre, 4th Floor, Building “A”, Shreepati Arcade, Nana Chowk, A. K. Marg, Mumb…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 891/MUM/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle – 9, Old CGO, Mumbai Appellant Vs. M/s. Shreepati Computer Centre, 7/8, Raghavji Bldg., 15/17, Raghavji Road, Gawalia Tank, Mumbai 400 036 Respondent & ITA. Nos. 889 to 892/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04) M/s. Shreepati Computer Centre, 4th Floor, Building “A”, Shreepati Arcade, Nana Chowk, A. K. Marg, Mumb…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 890/MUM/2009[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle – 9, Old CGO, Mumbai Appellant Vs. M/s. Shreepati Computer Centre, 7/8, Raghavji Bldg., 15/17, Raghavji Road, Gawalia Tank, Mumbai 400 036 Respondent & ITA. Nos. 889 to 892/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04) M/s. Shreepati Computer Centre, 4th Floor, Building “A”, Shreepati Arcade, Nana Chowk, A. K. Marg, Mumb…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 889/MUM/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle – 9, Old CGO, Mumbai Appellant Vs. M/s. Shreepati Computer Centre, 7/8, Raghavji Bldg., 15/17, Raghavji Road, Gawalia Tank, Mumbai 400 036 Respondent & ITA. Nos. 889 to 892/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04) M/s. Shreepati Computer Centre, 4th Floor, Building “A”, Shreepati Arcade, Nana Chowk, A. K. Marg, Mumb…

ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai vs. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1528/MUM/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle – 9, Old CGO, Mumbai Appellant Vs. M/s. Shreepati Computer Centre, 7/8, Raghavji Bldg., 15/17, Raghavji Road, Gawalia Tank, Mumbai 400 036 Respondent & ITA. Nos. 889 to 892/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04) M/s. Shreepati Computer Centre, 4th Floor, Building “A”, Shreepati Arcade, Nana Chowk, A. K. Marg, Mumb…