C.B. Gautam v. Union of India

199 ITR 530Supreme Court of India1993#2214 most cited

What is C.B. Gautam v. Union of India authority for?

Violation of the principle of natural justice, especially the right to an opportunity of being heard, may lead to an infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

C.B. Gautam v. Union of India · C.B. Gautam · natural justice · opportunity of being heard · audi alteram partem · violation of fundamental rights · Article 14 · Article 21 · income tax proceedings · fair hearing

Also reported as

65 Taxmann 440

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 23aretention moneysection 145(1)section 55asection 23(3)section 50c(1)section 211section 115baasection 66section 28(iv)section 145(2)section 43c

Judgments citing C.B. Gautam v. Union of India

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN vs. GRAPHIC ERA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 1848/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 250Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2011 -12] DCIT v M/s. Graphic Era Central Circle s Educational Society, Dehradun 566/6 Bell Road, Clement Uttarakhand Town, Dehradun Uttarakhand PAN-AAAAG0566E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT DR Assessee by Ms. Ruchika Rana, CA [Adjournment application rejected] Date of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the order dated 21.12.…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t to present the case and evidence, right to know the evidence and right to rebut adverse evidence have been explained in detail. It then reviews the impact of the decision in development of principles of natural justice in India”. b) C.B Gautam v. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) “Violation of the principle of natural justice may lead to violation of Fundamental rights of equality guaranteed by Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India” c) R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC) “Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullit…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 714/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t to present the case and evidence, right to know the evidence and right to rebut adverse evidence have been explained in detail. It then reviews the impact of the decision in development of principles of natural justice in India”. b) C.B Gautam v. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) “Violation of the principle of natural justice may lead to violation of Fundamental rights of equality guaranteed by Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India” c) R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC) “Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullit…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t to present the case and evidence, right to know the evidence and right to rebut adverse evidence have been explained in detail. It then reviews the impact of the decision in development of principles of natural justice in India”. b) C.B Gautam v. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) “Violation of the principle of natural justice may lead to violation of Fundamental rights of equality guaranteed by Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India” c) R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC) “Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullit…

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t to present the case and evidence, right to know the evidence and right to rebut adverse evidence have been explained in detail. It then reviews the impact of the decision in development of principles of natural justice in India”. b) C.B Gautam v. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) “Violation of the principle of natural justice may lead to violation of Fundamental rights of equality guaranteed by Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India” c) R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC) “Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullit…

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…t to present the case and evidence, right to know the evidence and right to rebut adverse evidence have been explained in detail. It then reviews the impact of the decision in development of principles of natural justice in India”. b) C.B Gautam v. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) “Violation of the principle of natural justice may lead to violation of Fundamental rights of equality guaranteed by Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India” c) R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC) “Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullit…

KAILASH CHAND MEENA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…and, therefore, liable to be set aside.— Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover vs. Appropriate Authority (1997) 139 CTR (Bom) 40 : 1995(2) Mh. L.J. 755 : TC S3.267 followed;C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) : TC S3.142 relied on. Also refer recent decision of this honble Tribunal in the case of M/s MotisonsJewellers Ltd in ITA No. 161 & 178/Jp/2022 dt. 29.09.2022. Copy enclosed. 1.7. This sec. 115BBE is charging of tax at the higher rate and it cannot be applied directly without giving any show cause notice when the issue are disputed that whet…

DCIT-27(3), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. VARSHA ENTERPRISES, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1848/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: \nShri Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: \nMs.Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 52(2)

…5 and 54. Flat\nnumbers are 304, 904, 1105 and 503. In any case variations upto 15% is to be\naccepted. This was held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of C. B.\nPage 8\nITA No. 1848/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2011-12\nVarsha Enterprises\nGautam vs. UOI, (1993) 199 ITR 530/[1992] 65 Taxman 440. Further the Act\nnow also provides for acceptable variance upto 10%. Courts have held that\nsuch variations upto 10% should be applied retrospectively. Further, cases\nwherein the variations are more than 10%. They are at serial numbers 5, 18,\n22, 25 and 37. Flat numbers are 705, 301, 501, 603 and 101. Details are given\nat…

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…r and, therefore, liable to be set aside.—Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover vs. Appropriate Authority (1997) 139 CTR (Bom) 40 : 1995(2) Mh. L.J. 755 : TC S3.267 followed;C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) : TC S3.142 relied on. Also refer recent decision of this honble Tribunal in the case of M/s Motisons Jewellers Ltd in ITA No. 161 & 178/Jp/2022 dt. 29.09.2022. Copy enclosed. 2.6. This sec. 115BBE is charging of tax at the higher rate and it cannot be applied directly without giving any show cause notice when the issue are disputed that w…

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1076/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

…d to the assessee.  Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (1979) (119 ITR 996)  Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1981 1 SCC 664)  Collector of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd. (1995-SC) 2 SCC 38  C.B Gautham vs Union of India and Others (199 ITR 530) (SC) 14. In this backdrop, the broad contentions of the assessee are extracted hereunder:- “that following filters were applied by DRP in the first round of assessment, which were not applied by the TPO:- * Rejection of companies with less than 25% of operating revenue from software development as export sales; and * Rejection of companies havi…

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…between the SDV and sales consideration is within the acceptable range of (+/-15%), the disallowance u/s 50C for land, by Ld. AO is incorrect. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble SC in the case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530, wherein the Apex Court had recog- nized a tolerance limit for pre-emptive purchase of property under Chapter XXC, at 15% of variation, even though no such tolerance band was prescribed in the statute. Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Based on the said principle, the Courts and Tribunals…

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…between the SDV and sales consideration is within the acceptable range of (+/-15%), the disallowance u/s 50C for land, by Ld. AO is incorrect. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble SC in the case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530, wherein the Apex Court had recog- nized a tolerance limit for pre-emptive purchase of property under Chapter XXC, at 15% of variation, even though no such tolerance band was prescribed in the statute. Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Based on the said principle, the Courts and Tribunals…

SEEMA RAMESH GIANCHANDANI C/O. DEEPAK MOORJANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.896/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Shri Seema Ramesh Gianchandani, The Ito, C/O. Deepak Moorjani, International Taxation Ward- No.9, Agastya Nagar, 1(1), Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Bozpg 1404 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 148Section 50C(1)Section 55A

…he Ld.CIT(A), is being deleted on account of variation which is less than 10% in view of the provisions of the section 55A(b)(i) of the Act. 5. The Ld.AR also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CB Gautham v. UoI reported in [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC), wherein, it was held as under: 21. The legislative history of Chapter XX-C, the stand taken by the Union of India and the Central Board of Direct Taxes as shown in the main counter affidavit and the affidavit of H.K. Sarangi, which has been filed after obtaining instructions from the Income Tax Department and the Central Board of Direct T…

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…and, therefore, liable to be set aside.—Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover vs. Appropriate Authority (1997) 139 CTR (Bom) 40 : 1995(2) Mh. L.J. 755 : TC S3.267 followed; C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) : TC S3.142 relied on. Also refer recent decision of this honble Tribunal in the case of M/s Motisons Jewellers Ltd in ITA No. 161 & 178/Jp/2022 dt. 29.09.2022 and M/s Rukmani Jewellers in ITA No.539/Jp/2023 dt.20.12.2023. Copy enclosed. 1.6. No sufficient time is given in the SCN hence void-ab-initio: Further the ld. AO issued the SCN on dt…

SARAVANAN PRIYA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW 15(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1245/CHNY/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has not considered the basic difference of benefit 4. of 15% valuation on DVO value. The ld. CIT(A) distinguished the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India, (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) by observing as under at para 11.3 :- 5 -: ITA No.1245 /Chny/2023 ‘’11.3 Firstly, in the case of Vimalchand (supra), the Hon'ble ITAT has referred to Sec.55A of the Act and opined that a relief may be provided up to 15% variation, whereas, it may be noted that as per section 55A of the Act, with a view to ascertaining the fair market value…

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…er and, therefore, liable to be set aside.— Mrs.NirmalLaxminarayan Grover vs. Appropriate Authority (1997) 139 CTR (Bom) 40 : 1995(2) Mh. L.J. 755 : TC S3.267 followed;C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) : TC S3.142 relied on. Thus the ld. AO has not given or issued any show cause notice before making the additions or allegations or invoking the provisions of sec. 145(3) and 68. It was mandatory on the part of the ld. AO to issue the specific show cause notice to this effect asking to the assessee as to why the income should not be taxed as…

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…and, therefore, liable to be set aside.—Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover vs. Appropriate Authority (1997) 139 CTR (Bom) 40 : 1995(2) Mh. L.J. 755 : TC S3.267 followed; C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) : TC S3.142 relied on. Also refer recent decision of this honble Tribunal in the case of M/s Motisons Jewellers Ltd in ITA No. 161 & 178/Jp/2022 dt. 29.09.2022. Copy enclosed. 2. All the allegation of the ld. AO based on guess work, assumption, presumption and suspicion and our WS on the same are as under: 2.1). On the allegation that the…

SMT. MUMTAJBANU A. JIVANI,AMRELI vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1) (4), AMRELI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 269USection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…nd purchase value of the property being merely 15%, there was no need to make any addition to the income of the assessee in terms of section 56(2)(vii)(b). Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India 199 ITR 530. The ld. CIT(A) however did not find any merit in the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee and noting that despite several opportunities given by the DVO to file objection to his valuation, the assessee had made no objection to the same, he stated that any objection of the assessee to the valuation report at this stage could not be enter…

SHABBIR RAJABALI VAKIL,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 874/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshabbir Rajabali Vakil Vs. Ito (Int. Tax) Ward 701, Silver View, 4(3)(1), Room No. 1625, Chimbai Road, Bandra 16Th Floor, Air India West, Mumbai – 400050 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abvpv6524C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Abhishek SamdaniFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

…eciating that difference between stamp duty value & agreement value is between 3.63% to 5.97% which is within the tolerance limit of 10% laid down by the ITAT benches throughout the country based on the Apex Court decision in the case of C. B. Gautam Vs. UOI (199 ITR 530(SC)]. 6. The Id. DRP further erred in not appreciating that the Hon. Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in its order dt. 14.09.2021 in the case of Joseph Mudaliar Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 6912/Mum/2019 has held that amendment in sec. 56(2)(x) of the Act brought out by the Finance Act, 2018 w.ef 01.04.2019 allowing tolerance limit up to 5% and by the Finance Act 2…

PRINCE MULTIPLAST PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Ms. Mrugankshi JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…P a g e | 1 Prince Multiplast Private Limited Vs.ACIT, Circle 7(3)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Prince Multiplast Private Vs. ACIT, Circle 7(3)(2) Limited, 21, 2nd Floor Room No. 128A, 1st Floor, Kalpataru Point, Kamani Aaykar Bhavan, Marg Sion (East), Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400022 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACP9106B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Mrugankshi Joshi Respondent by : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Date of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement…

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3