How many judgments cite Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT?

111 judgments on BharatTax cite Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT (15 SOT 252), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 153C, Section 132, Section 147, Section 143(1).

Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT

15 SOT 252Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#959 most cited

What is Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer must grant the correct deduction after due verification of claims made by the assessee, even if not perfectly articulated initially. This principle applies in assessment proceedings, including those involving specific deductions like those for export-oriented units under Section 10B.

111

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd v DCIT · 15 SOT 252 · ITAT Mumbai · Assessing Officer duty to verify · correct deduction · Section 10B · export oriented undertaking · assessment procedure · assessee claim verification · Section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 153C Section 132 Section 147 Section 143(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)(1)section 8d(2)(ii)section 17(2)(iiia)section 10b(8)section 8d section 9(1)(ii)section 17(2)section 158bb(1)section 5(b)section 153(a)retraction of statement section 153a(1)(a)

Judgments citing Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. DCIT

Varun Gopinath, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 28(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2315/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhvarun Gopinath Vs. Ito, Ward 28(3)(1) E-2, 503, Bhimashankar Tower No. 6, Vashi Chs, Sec-19A Nerul, Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400706 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Albpg7827K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Darshan JakariaFor Respondent: Prabhat Kumar Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…hasized that A.O is duty bound to assess correct income and while doing so he may also grant relief if the assessee is entitled too. The ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. VS. DCIT, 15 SOT 252. On the other hand the ld. D.R. supported the order of the lower authorities. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The ld. Pr. CIT held that the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue since the A.O has failed to verify the claim of the assessee while allowi…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…68 Piramal Foundation [2014] 52 taxmann.com 226/[2015] 228 Taxman 332 14. CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012] 208 74-82 Held 75 Taxman 498/23 taxmann.com 23 (Born.) 15. ITAT Mumbai Bench in Chicago Pneumatic India 83-95 Head 83 Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2007] 15 SOT 252 note 16. ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Gifford & 96-139 28 & 29 112 & Partners Ltd. v. Dy. Director of International Taxation [2016] 68 taxmann.com 142 113 17. Allahabad High Court in the 140-148 34 & 35 140 case of Universal & Subscription Agency (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2007] 159 Taxman 64 141 18. Rakesh Singh vs ACIT (26 149-156 10 - 10.2 152…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Shri Surendra Gajraj, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1018/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1018/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cuke Surendra Gajraj, I.T.O., F-132 C, Road No. 12, Vki Area, Vs. Ward- 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abypg 2156 Q Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(3)

…ies and confirmed the commission payment. The law does not require from the assessee to enter in agreement on stamp paper for claiming commission as held in the case of 7 ITA 1018/JP/2018 _ Surendra Gajraj Vs ITO Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mum.). The books of account are audited which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer, sale and purchase have been treated genuine, but doubted the commission payment and the learned Assessing Officer made addition on surmises and conjectures." Therefore, we are of the considered view that commission paid by the assessee either on sale and pur…

Dy CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Navi Mumbai

ITA 7672/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit -15(2)(1) M/S Hexaware Technologies 3Rd Floor, Room No. 357, Vs. Ltd., Unit No. 152, Millennium Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Business Park, Ttc, Marine Lines, Industrial Area, Mahape, Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 710

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 288Section 80J

…. Ltd. (ITA 3808 of 2010) Bombay HC 2) Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT (187ITR 688) SC 3) CIT v. Ramco International (221 CTR 491 )(Punjab& Haryana HC) 4) Emerson Network Power Ind (27 SOT 593)(Mumbai Tribunal) 5) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd v. DCIT (15 SOT 252))(Mumbai Tribunal” In view of the above discussion I hold that the AO is bound to assess the correct income and for this purpose, the AO may grant reliefs / refunds suomoto or can do so on being pointed out by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. In, my opinion due to mere procedural lapse or technicalities, appellant should not b…

Jagadguru Narendracharya Maharaj Sansthan, (Formerly Known As Sadguru Narendra Maharaj Sansthan), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemption) Circle, Pune

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. S. SamriaFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 11Section 154

…th law, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 28 4 ITR 323/157 Taxman 1 and also in accordance with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2007] 15 SOT 252 (Mum.). A.Ys.2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 5.1 Further, in our order dated 05.02.2020 (supra), we have already considered the fact of taxation of part of the corpus (which is not donated with the specific purpose) and also approved the allowability of the capital expenditure out of the said corpus donations as an allowable deduction. 5.2 I…

Jagadguru Narendracharya Maharaj Sansthan, (Formerly Known As Sadguru Narendra Maharaj Sansthan), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemption) Circle, Pune

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3104/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. S. SamriaFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 11Section 154

Jagadguru Narendracharya Maharaj Sansthan, (Formerly Known As Sadguru Narendra Maharaj Sansthan), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemption) Circle, Pune

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3103/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. S. SamriaFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 11Section 154

Jagadguru Narendracharya Maharaj Sansthan, (Formerly Known As Sadguru Narendra Maharaj Sansthan), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemption) Circle, Pune

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3102/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. S. SamriaFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 11Section 154

Income Tax Officer- 5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Su-Sampada, Indore

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 504/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2011-12

Section 139(5)Section 80I

…. Our view is fortified by the following case-laws: 1. CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Ltd., 303 ITR 256 (Del); 2. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 172 Taxman 258 (Del); 3. CIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Ltd., 90 ITR 236 (All.); 4. Chicago Pneumatics India Ltd. vs. DCIt (15 SOT 252) (Mum); 5. Bharat Starch Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (URO) (ITA No.1611/K/2003); 6. Thomas Kurian vs. ACIT, 108 TTJ 439 (Cochin); and 7. Xerox India Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.1580/Del/2010) (URO). 6. So far as the second ground raised by the Revenue is concerned, the ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that 6 Su-Sampad…

Morarjee Realities Ltd. (Now Known As Peninsula Land Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T. Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2135/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushilkumar Poddar

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45

…se allowable, ought to be allowed as the entire issue regarding year of tax becomes academic in absence of tax effect. 18. It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd v Dy. CIT, 15 SOT 252 (Mum), the claim of the assessee ought to be considered by the CIT(A) even though it was not made by way of a revised return. 19. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has defended the stand of the lower authorities by reiterating the reasoning contained in the respective orders, which we have already noted in the earlier part of this order, and is not b…

The ACIT, Ernakulam vs. M/S.Nitta Gelatine India Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 301/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…the completion of the assessment proceedings. 17. On appeal, the CIT(A) analysed the provisions of law in the light of the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) , ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. (15 SOT 252), CIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Ltd. (90 ITR 236), Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336), ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of Thomas Kurian vs. ACIT (106 ITD 158), Solaris Bio Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.987/2011 dated 13/07/2012 (Delhi) and allowed the claim of the assessee. 18. Against this, the Re…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Nitta Gelatine India Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 303/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACJ7079D Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER Per N.…

The DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal vs. M/S. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 63/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 20

…the character of an original return, but once the reuised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn a tid to have been substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of the assessment" 1. Chicago Pneumatics India Ltd. us, DCIT (15 SOT 252) (Mumbai) The Hon'ble Tribunal observed as follows: "The situation has compelled us to look into the duties of the assessing authorities rot her than. powers of assessing authorities because the' Government is entitled to collect only the tax legitimately due to it otherwise the tax not so collected would be in. violation of Article 265 of the Co…

Sree Murali Mohan Boiled & Raw Rice Mill (P) Limited, Biccavol vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 276/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.276/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-2011) M/S Sree Murali Mohana Boiled & Raw The Assistant Commissioner Rice Mill (P) Ltd., Of Income-Tax, D.No.1-54, Kommaripalem Central Circle-1(1) Biccavolu Mandal Rajahmundry East Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aahcs7807F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.276/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-2011) M/s Sree Murali Mohana Boiled & Raw The Assistant Commissioner Rice Mill (P) Ltd., of Income-Tax, D.No.1-54, Kommaripalem Central Circle-1(1) Biccavolu Mandal Rajahmundry East Godavari Dist. [PAN : AAHCS7807F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Responde…

Indecomm Global Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1589/BANG/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10A

…-Funds International India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.607 & 607/2015. He reiterated submissions made before the CIT(A). The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 11. We have considered the rival submissions. In the case of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. DCIT 15 SOT 252 (2007) (ITAT) (Del), the Delhi Page 8 of 12 ITAT, in the context of allowability of new claims during the assessment proceedings without having recourse to a revised return, has, placing reliance on principle embedded in Article 265 of Indian constitution (No tax can be collected except by the authority of law), CBDT Circular No. 14 dated 11 Apri…

M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 359/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 359/Pun/2013 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney & Ms. Rhea AmarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 801ASection 80I

…of the legal paper book - CT)- while an Assessing Officer may not be entitled to grant a deduction or an exemption on the basis of a revised computation of income, there was no such fetter on the appellate authorities. 4. Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v DCIT 15 SOT 252 [2007] (page 76 - 91 of the legal paper book - CT)(Mumbai ITAT) - In this case, the taxpayer who had made claims in the original return revised the claim for deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings without filing a revised return. The ITAT considered Circular no. 14(XL- 35) of 1955, dated 11-4-…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Ranjit Hanmantrao Mohite, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1253/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BathamFor Respondent: Shri Sanket Joshi

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1253/PUN/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle – 13, Pune. ………. अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम v/s ………. ""यथ" / Shri Ranjit Hanmantrao Mohite, Respondent “KAH” Plot No.3, Ivory Estates, Baner Road, Baner, Aundh, Pune – 411 008. PAN : ABFPM2865F. Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Batham. Revenue by : Shri Sanket Joshi. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 28.08.2018 Date o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Jugal Kishore Arora, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 157/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.157/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2010-2011 The DCIT, Shri Jugal Kishore Arora, Central Circle-28, 201, Vipps Centre, 2- vs Room No.317, ARA Centre, Community Complex, Jhandewalan Extn., Masujid Moth, G.K.II, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN AAJPA9385M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R. For Assessee : -None- Date of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2018 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Revenue has been dire…