How many judgments cite CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi?

237 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (141 ITR 67), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 147, Section 148, Section 250.

CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi

141 ITR 67High Court1983#370 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi authority for?

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for additions of cash credits found solely in a bank passbook, as a passbook maintained by the bank is not considered a 'book of the assessee' for the purpose of this section, especially when the assessee does not maintain their own books of account.

237

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi · 141 ITR 67 · section 68 · unexplained cash credit · bank passbook · books of account · assessee's books · applicability of Section 68 · no books of account · cash credit in bank account

Also reported as

11 Taxmann 5919 SOT 460

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Section 250 Section 115BBE Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 2(12a)addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 unexplained cash credit section 68 change of opinion section 131 genuineness of the transaction section 145 limited scrutiny agricultural income section 115bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi

Mr. Neeraj Paliwal, Rajsamand vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 11/JODH/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

…,13,000/- in the bank accounts of the assessee by invoking Section 68 has to fail, for the very reason that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi 13 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay), a bank pass book or bank statement cannot be considered to be a 'book' maintained by the assessee for any previous year for the purpose of Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, on this count itself the impugned addition made and sustained deserves to be deleted and we direct to delete the same" We also draw strength from the decision of the…

Mr. Neeraj Paliwal, Rajsamand vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/JODH/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 68

K Nirmala, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 347/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…see and :- 5 -: ITA No. 345 to 347/Hyd/2021 Smt. K. Nirmala, Hyd. her husband and decide the issue in accordance with law. The ld. AR relied on the following judgments: 1. Mehul Vyas Vs. ITO, [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 311 2. CIT Vs. Bhai Chand N. Gandhi, [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, filed a written note on paper book filed by the assessee, which is as under: “The following submissions with regard to the documents filed by the assessee in the paper book filed before the Hon'ble ITAT are made for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. 1. It is submitted that the assessee filed a pap…

K Nirmala, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 346/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

K Nirmala, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 345/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

Shri. H.S. Abdul Hakeem, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2379/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…addition u/s 68 of the I.T.Act is not correct. At para 9 of the written submission, it is urged by the assessee as follows:- “The cash deposit of Rs.17,11,500/- in the savings Bank account cannot be added u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 (CIT v. Bhaichand H.Gandhi 141 ITR 67 Bom)” 7.2 I am of the view in the interest of justice and equity, one opportunity should be granted to the assessee to prove the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs.17,11,500. For this purpose, the issue on merits is restored to the files of the A.O. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer. The assessee shall place ne…

A.Srinivasa Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.518/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Sri A.Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.48-13-20/1, F.No.Sf2 Ward-1(4) Sri Krishna Sai Residency Visakhapatnam Janaki Rama Street Visakhapatnam [Pan :Adhpa2185Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ks of the assessee' maintained for the previous year, cannot be brought to tax by invoking the provisions of Section 68. That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: - "As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys are deposited in a bank, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor and not of trustee and beneficiary. Applying this principle, the pass book supplied…

Smt Kushalappa Savitri, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2236/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 154Section 68

…and that the bank should offer explanation for the sums so credited. In such a situation, the banks would be taxed for unexplained cash credits which is an absurd consequence. The ld. DR relied on the following decisions:- - CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bom) - CIT v. Anand Ram Raitani [1997] 223 ITR 544 (Gauhati) Page 7 of 17 - A. Ram Mohan v. State in CRL.R.C.No.265 of 2015 dated 30.03.2015 - Dr.K.M. Mehboob v. DCIT [2012] 26 taxmann.com 54 (Ker.) 14. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The AO made the addition on the reason that the assessee has deposited chequ…

Smt. Kempanna Shylaja, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…ld savings bank account of the appellant. The appellant submits that even the passbook or the bank statement cannot be considered as books for the sake of section 68 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: a. CIT v. Baichand N.Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom.). The head notes of the case are reproduced below for kind reference. Income – Cash Credit – Bank Pass Book is not a book maintained by assessee or under his instructions – Cash Credit for previous year shown in assessee’s bank pass book – not shown in cash book of assessee for that year – cannot be treated as income of that previous year –…

M/S Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

…requirement of Sec. 68, i.e the amount being credited in the books of account is not satisfied, no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act, the Ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom). Also reliance was placed on the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. Income-Tax Officer (2017) 80 taxmann.com 311 (Mum) and that of the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of DCIT Vs. Raja Udayshankar (2006) 7 SOT 680 (Bang). 30. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower…

Amar Adak, Howrah vs. A.C.I.T.Circle-46, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2642/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

…edure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs.” 6.3. Even otherwise no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act unless the assessee maintains books of account as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi reported in 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ms. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 [DEL]. 6.4. An addition u/s 68 of the Act was made on bogus figures which are not true and when no such entries were made in the books of account. In view of the above discussion, we delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on facts of this cas…

Smt. Sheela Yogi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Him Under Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Act, 1962. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 68

…maintain any books of accounts and as per Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, for it to be applicable, maintaining books of accounts is a condition 7 Sheela Yogi, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur precedent and in support, reliance was placed on CIT v. Bhaichand N Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom) and other decisions. It was accordingly submitted that the additions so made by the AO be directed to be deleted. 7. Per contra, the ld DR submitted that it is a case where the notice u/s 148 was issued to verify the source of investment in purchase of the agriculture land as the AO had a reason to believe that income to that extent has esc…

Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 13/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Cuke Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 2, Scheme No. 2, Arya Ward 7(3) Vihar Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abipg 2253 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Making An Addition Of Rs. 4,03,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act As Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposited In Bank Accounts. 2. The Appellant Contends That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Ought Not To Have Upheld The Action Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…to maintain books of account under section 44AA of the Act, the Assessing Officer has fallen in error in invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Bhai Chand N. Gandhi reported in 141 ITR 67. Following the said 4 ITA 13/JP/2020_ Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta Vs ITO decision, Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Srikant G. Sawant (ITA No 7712/M/2012) has held similarly. 5.1.5 Without prejudice, section 68 cannot be invoked in case the assessee prima facie proves the following — (i) Proof of identity of the creditor (ii) Capacity of such credi…

Dineshkumar Verma, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1183/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1183/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) Dineshkumar Verma, 102, Sai Aashram Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Tejumal Chaki Road, Nr. Sadhubela School, Ulhasnagar, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Tahane 421 001 Pan : Acmpv 7468B बनाम/ Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma

Section 44ASection 68

…it entry in the books. The ld. Authorised representative of the assessee contended that bank passbook/statement does not constitute books of account. To support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) (2) Madhu Raitani vs. ACIT, 10 taxmann.com 206 (Guwahati)(TM) (3) Manasi Mahendra Pitkar vs. ITO 160 ITD 605 (Mumbai – Trib.) (4) Kokarre Prabhakara vs. ITO, ITA 1239/Bang/2019 DoD 11/09/2020 2.2. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee asserted that although the provisions of section 68 does not apply where the return has been f…

Pranay Bidhyanand Halder, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2490/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Section 44ASection 68

…any books of account. The issue which arises for consideration is, whether provisions of section 68 of the Act can, at all, be applied by relying upon the entries made in the bank pass book. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Bhaichand N Gandhi (141 ITR 67) has held that the bank pass book cannot be considered as books of account maintained by the assessee. 5 Pranay Ridhyanand Halder 7. Thus, on overall consideration, I hold that the addition made under section 68 of the Act is unsustainable. Accordingly, I delete the addition. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, appeal…

Parbat M Chamriya, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 33, Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3059/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Section 148Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…urther note that addition under section 68 of the Act of the deposits in bank account simplicitor when no books of account are maintained is not sustainable on the touchstone of honourable Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (141 ITR 67). Furthermore the assessing officer has added a sum of Rs. 27,10812 which represents the deposits in the ICICI Bank account. The assessing officer has not added the deposits in Cosmos Bank. This clearly implies that assessing officer has accepted that the same represents assessee’s business turnover. In such circumstances how the deposits in the o…

Vangapandu Prem Kumar, Kakinada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 269/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.269/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-2015) Vangapandu Prem Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.42-3-1 Ward-I, Kakinada Sri Venkateswara Garments Tilak Street, Main Road Kakinada [Pan : Abxpv9304L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt U.Mini Chandran, Sr.Ar 23.09.2020 सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt U.Mini Chandran, Sr.AR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 68

…ks of the assessee' maintained for the previous year, cannot be brought to tax by invoking the provisions of Section 68. That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: - "As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys are deposited in a bank, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor and 10 I.T.A. No.269/Viz/2019, A.Y.2014-15 Vangapandu Prem Kumar, Kakinada not of…

Ghanta Punna Rao, Guntur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Guntur

In the result, the appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 179/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.354/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Ghanta Punna Rao Income Tax 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Circle-2(1) 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.124/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.354/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

M/S. Kokkarne Prabhakar, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Hubballi

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

ITA 1239/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Indira Prasta Apartment, Ward 3(2), Hubballi. Vivekanand Colony, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 023 Pan Acipp 8430H

Section 143(3)Section 44A

…e assessee or under his instructions. As such, addition u/s 68 of the Act of the amount entered only in the bank statements was not justified. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand H.Gandhi [141 ITR 67 (Bom.)] and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt.Sarika Jain v.CIT (407 ITR 254). The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the Tribunal is not competent to sustain the addition u/s 69A of the Act after deleting the said addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act, the entire order o…

Syed Maqsoodulla, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 397/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Syed Maqsoodulla, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.14, 7Th “A’ Cross Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore. ‘D’ Block, Magadi Road Bangalore-560023. [Pan:Cycps 3116F]

Section 115BSection 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A