How many judgments cite CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.?

935 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR 295), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 147, Section 14A, Section 132, Section 153A.

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.

358 ITR 295Supreme Court of India2013#49 most cited

What is CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. authority for?

When an income or expenditure is revenue neutral across different assessment years, where any benefit derived is offset by a corresponding liability or reversal, no additional tax liability arises, particularly concerning income recognition under the mercantile system of accounting.

935

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. · Excel Industries Ltd SC 2013 · Revenue Neutral principle · mercantile system of accounting · right to receive income · taxability of revenue neutral transactions · Section 147 Income Tax Act · reassessment · Section 148 Income Tax Act · profits and gains of business or profession · no tax liability revenue neutral · income accrual reversal

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 100219 Taxmann 379

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 14A Section 132 Section 153A Section 1961 Section 148

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

right to receive mercantile system of accounting rule of consistency section 35 profits and gains of business or profession revenue expenditure liable to tax section 80i section 37(1)section 28 section 32 capital expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.

Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT CC 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1139/AHD/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 to 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAEPS7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1148 to 1155 & 1184/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2021-22) बना…

Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT CC 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1138/AHD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A. P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1138 to 1146/Ahd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2021-22) Prakash Misrimal Sanghvi 17, Rajmugat Soc. Naranpura Char Rasta, Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 बनाम / Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Income-Tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAEPS7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1148 to 1155 & 1184/Ahd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2021-22) Deputy…

Utkarsh Vasantkumar Mehta, Silvassa vs. DCIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1192/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत "ायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1192/SRT/2024 (AY 2015-16) (Virtual court hearing) Utkarsh Vasantkumar Mehta, बनाम DCIT-Circle Vapi, C-/2, Plot No. 40, Standard House, Vapi. Danuyog Sahakari Sang Pipara, Vs Silvasa-369230 [PAN : AACPM 6232 E] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Gopalakrishnan Aiyar, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain– Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 17.02.2025 उद्घोषणा की…

Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd ( Formerly Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 5299/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)

…/Mum/2010, dated 24/06/2024], wherein both the sides had agreed that issues raised were to be decided afresh after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal reads as under: “53. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The facts and findings on the issue of taxability is not fully discussed in the order of the assessing officer and the CIT(A) therefore we restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer…

Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd ( Formerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)

…2899/Mum/2010, dated 24/06/2024], wherein both the sides had agreed that issues raised were to be decided afresh after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal reads as under: “53. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The facts and findings on the issue of taxability is not fully discussed in the order of the assessing officer and the CIT(A) therefore we restore this issue to the file of the assessing officer to de…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-16(2), Mumbai

ITA 292/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 37(1)Section 40

…e, it can be seen that a sum of Rs. 21,18,463/- was adjusted in F.Y. 2009-10 and Rs. 2,57,214/- was adjusted in F.Y. 2010-11. 26. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries 358 ITR 295 and the same read as under: "Thirdly, the real question concerning us is the year in which the assessee is required to pay tax. There is no dispute that in the subsequent accounting year, the assessee did make imports and did derive benefits under the advance licence and the duty entitlement pass book and paid tax thereon. Therefore, it is not as…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - 11(2), Mumbai

ITA 291/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 37(1)Section 40

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Joint Range- 11(2), Mumbai

ITA 289/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 37(1)Section 40

Subodh Gupta, Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-

ITA 955/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…f the life membership fee as its revenue hence, effectively only is a question of timing difference. There would be absolutely no loss to the exchequer in the form of taxes. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel industries Limited reported in 358 ITR 295(SC) held by observing that where the rate of taxes remain the same in all the years, the dispute raised by the revenue is entirely academic and in that scenario, no addition is required to be made. While doing so, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had duly taken cognizance of the principles of real income theory and proposed consistency in the treatment…

ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Pallon Shapoorji Mistry, Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1408/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 3

…try is made about a hypothetical income which does not materialize. This observation find force from various judicial precedents of Hon'ble Supreme Court including in the case of Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC), Excel Industries Ltd., [2014] 358 ITR 295(SC). Change in method of accounting is not impermissible or barred, more particularly when assessee explains the situations which warrants such a change. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case 10 Pallon Shapoorji Mistry., AY 2020-21 of CIT vs. Punjab State Industrial Development Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 351 (P&H) held that – “Reliance…

M/S. Larsen & Tourbro Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2) & 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1010/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of L&T House, Income Tax, N.M. Marg, Vs. Central Circle-5(4), Ballard Estate, Fort, [Erstwhile Income Tax Officer-2(2), Mumbai] Mumbai 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Pan : Aaacl0140P Nariman Point, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of L&T House, Income Tax, N.M. Marg, vs. Central Circle-5(4), Ballard Estate, Fort, [erstwhile Income Tax Officer-2(2), Mumbai] Mumbai 19th Floor, Air India Building, PAN : AAACL0140P Nariman Point, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Madhur Agarwal For Revenue : Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 19-12-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23-01-2025 O R D…

Paras Kuhad, Jaipur vs. ACIT - 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 1004/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…s no reason to differ from the accepted and consistent method of accounting of the appellant without any substantive reason for the same. In this regard reliance is placed on the following: - 193 ITR 321 Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income-tax (SC) - 358 ITR 295 CIT V. Excel Industries Ltd. (SC) It is thus submitted that the assessee had rightly recognised revenue in respect of only those professional receipts, which have been actually received during the year under consideration i.e. Assessment year 2017-18. On the other hand, the clients of the assessee having followed mercantile basis of accounting, h…

Inder Devi, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1696/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.2627/िद"ी/2013(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1695 और 1696/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2009-10 और 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain & Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advocates &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 80I

…ng expenses. Therefore, the principle of consistency demand that no disallowance should be made on account of Directors traveling expense. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 and Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT, 193 ITR 321 (SC). He further submitted that the AO for the first time in AY 2007-08 allocated aforesaid expenses to various eligible projects in the sales ratio. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted 50% of Directors traveling expenses. On further appeal, the Tribunal vide order dated 26.07.2024(supra) upheld the order of…

R. Neelima Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 45

…and paid the taxes in A.Y. 2018-19 i.e. the year in which she actually realised the sale consideration by sale of two flats received in consideration of JDA. Similar issue was came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Excel Industries Limited 358 ITR 295 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that the revenue has not been deprived of any tax as the rate of tax remain same in both the years. In the case before us also, there is no quarrel of the revenue that, there is any difference in the rate of tax involved in both the years. Therefore, r…

The Dy CIT CC-38, Mumbai vs. M/S. United Phosphourous Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4099/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt.Renu Jauhri, Accountan Member

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Heera Ram Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…he issue is covered in assessee's favour by the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in Page 8 ITA Nos. 3456 & 4099/Mum/2004 Α.Υ. 2000-01 M/s United Phosphorous Ltd.) assessee's own case as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd, 358 ITR 295. Relevant decisions in its own case cited in support of the claim are as under: 1. Bombay High Court Assessment Year 1994-95 (ITA no 1866 of 2013). 2. Gujarat High Court – Assessment Year 1995-96 (Tax Appeal No. 322 of 2001) 3. Gujarat High Court – Assessment Year 1997-98 (Tax Appeal No. 129 of 2003) 4. ITAT – AY 1998-99 (ITA No. 1519/A/2002) 5.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S. Savijana Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd

ITTA/55/2010HC Telangana20 Dec 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Kribhco Infrastructure Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 5750/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2014-15 Kribhco Infrastructure Vs. Acit, Circle 14(2), Ltd. New Delhi A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 48 (Pan: Aadck7285P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. TarunFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 32(1)(ii)

…es a facility to carry on business. Furthermore, assessee’s claim of amortization on lease hold land for AY 2012-13 was duly allowed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. In this regard, we place reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries 358 ITR 295, wherein it has been held that when in earlier asstt. years the revenue accepted the order of the tribunal in favour of the assessee, then Revenue cannot be allowed to flip flop on the issue and it ought let the matter rest rather than spend the tax payers money in pursuing litigation for the sake of it. In the background of the aforesaid discuss…

Dayal Cotspin Limited, Akola vs. ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.87/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dayal Cotspin Ltd. New Radhakishan Plots ……………. Appellant Akola 444 001 PAN – AACCD4041K v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Akola Circle, Akola Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 26/11/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 04/01/2024, passed by the learned Commissio…

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Indus Towers Ltd (formerly Vs. DCIT, known as Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, DLF QE, SO Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCV0274F ACIT, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCV0274F Indus Towers Ltd (formerly Vs. DCIT, known as Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4th Floor, DLF Cybercity, New Delhi Building…

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148