How many judgments cite CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi?

145 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi (296 ITR 292), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 57(iv), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 10(37), Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 45(5).

CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi

296 ITR 292High Court2008#697 most cited

What is CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi authority for?

An assessment order cannot be revised under Section 263 for being erroneous due to a perceived lack of enquiry if the Assessing Officer has already conducted an enquiry, applied their mind, and accepted the assessee's explanation.

145

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi · Section 263 · revision of assessment order · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · lack of enquiry · Assessing Officer's application of mind · enhanced compensation · Section 56(2)(viii) · Section 28 Land Acquisition Act

Sections most often in play

Section 57(iv)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 45(5)Section 145A Section 28

Issues it is cited on

section 145b section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 145a(b)section 10(37)enhanced compensation section 145a compulsory acquisition lack of enquiry section 264 section 143(3a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…(2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 ta…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

M/S. Pyrotech Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) 17. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) 18. CIT v/s Paras Cotton Co. 288 ITR 211(Raj.) 19. Gaberial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 20. CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292(Raj.) 8 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR has supported the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and stated that the AO has not done proper and detailed inquiry, verification and examination which was necessary and there is lack of inquiry. 2.4 After going through the assessment details, r…

Ravi Manohar Batwara, Jaipur vs. The PCIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 145/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…record and after considering the explanation of the assessee, it cannot be said that he has not applied his mind for which following decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court are relevant:- 1. CIT vs Girdhar Lal 258 ITR 331 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Ganpat Ram Vishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) 3. CIT vs Shiv Hari Madhusudan 233 ITR 649 (Raj) It is also noteworthy to mention that an order can be treated as ‘’erroneous’’ if it was passed in utter ignorance or in violation of any law or passed without taking into consideration all the relevant facts or by taking into consideration irrelevant facts. The ‘Prejudice’ that is contempla…

Mukesh Kumar Saraogi, Churu vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Shivangi Samdhani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (CIT)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s: S. No. Particulars Page No. 1 Copy of judgment of Hon’ble ITAT Indore in the case 1-17 of DCIT vs M/s Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd.- ITA Nos. 677/Ind/2019 2 Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the 18-20 case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishoni- [2008] 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) 3 Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court 21-23 judgment in the case of PCIT vs. Bajargan Traders 86 taxmaan.com 295 (Rajasthan) 8. The ld. AR of the assessee relying on the submission made before the PCIT submitted that during the course of survey proceedings income of Rs. 51,22,273/- was disclosed on account of excess cash GP…

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…ITA No.401/Bang/2022 Janata Traders, Gadag IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Janata Traders Namjoshi Road, Principal CIT Gadag 582 101 Vs. Hubli 580 025 PAN NO : AABFJ1358F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Girija, A.R. Respondent by : Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 26.10.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Principal CIT passed u/s 263 of t…

Kusuma Cashews, Karkala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 511/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Kusuma Cashews, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of 316/1, 316/2A, Income Tax (Central), Near Kariakallu, Bengaluru. Karkala – 574 104. Karnataka. PAN: AAPFK 6027L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 19.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of P…

Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.400/Bang/2022 Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli +IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF) Flat No.401, B Block Ramdatt Apts Keshwapur Vs. Principal CIT Hubli 580 023 Hubli PAN NO : AAHHN3255R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P. Girija, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by asse…

M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Oil Products, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 489/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms.Padmavathy S.M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Vs Pcit, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen'S Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 Pan – Aaefj1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 28.03.2022 Passed For Ay 2018-19 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Pcit) Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 269Section 269SSection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “B” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President and Ms.Padmavathy S., Accountant Member M/s. Janatha Fish Meal & vs PCIT, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen's Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 PAN – AAEFJ1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue by: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 14/09/2022 Date of pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This appeal is against the revision order passed under Section 263 of the In…

Hariyappa Kotian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 430/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 143Section 153DSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.430 & 431/Bang/2022 Assessment year : 2017-18 & 2018 - 19 M/s Hariyappa Kotian, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Karthik Complex, Tax [Central], Malpe Main Road, Bengaluru. Udupi-576 108. PAN – AECPK 7269 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 08.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member These two…

Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

ITA 126/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 6(3)(ii)

…stretched to any level by forcing the AO to go through the assessment process again and again this proposition is not authorised by the law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Vishnoi, 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) wherein at para 11 of the Hon'ble Court held as under: "Jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something." In view of the above there is no error in order of ld. AO nor any…

R V Deshpande HUF, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 340/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 R V Deshpande HUF, Vs. The Principal Commissioner No.372, Nilay, R.T. Nagar of Income Tax, Main Road, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore – 1, Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. PAN: AABHR 8684Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S V Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : .09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the or…

Compucom Software Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 153/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…r enforcing the assessment again and again for small issues. It is submitted that the work of assessment cannot be completed with surgical precision. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi- 296 ITR 292 (Raj) wherein it was held that jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again (CLC 54- 57). B5. Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Annu Agrotech Private Limited, ITA No. 09/JP/2021, apropos assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 by the ld. PCIT, laid down th…

M/S. Karthik Estate, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153DSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 M/s. Karthik Estate, Vs. The Principal Commissioner 79/AP1, 79/1A1, of Income [Central], Kidiyoor Village, Bengaluru. Udupi – 576 103. PAN: AAQFK 0031M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 17.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against the order of…

A.R. and Co., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 127/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.127/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) A. R. & Co., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Stall No.7/8, Opp. Laxmi Income-Tax-1, Surat, Income Tax Petroleum, Umarwads-395010. Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfa2767 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca Revenue By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.127/SRT/2021 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) A. R. and Co., Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Stall No.7/8, Opp. Laxmi Income-Tax-1, Surat, Income Tax Petroleum, Umarwads-395010. Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFA2767 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, CA Revenue by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 08/07/2022 22/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI…

Mahalaxmi Kundan Meena Diamond Jewellers P Ltd, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 119/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 119/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke M/s Mahalaxmi Kundan Meena Diamond Pr. Commissioner of Income Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tax, 3, New Colony, M.I. Road, Jaipur-1, Jaipur Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 8619 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.) jktL…

Parvinder Kaur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A.&For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…IT. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Lata Phulwani vs PCIT- ITA No. 246/JP/2020 [CLC 83- 104]. 6. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Ganpat Ram Vishnoi- 296 ITR 292 (Raj) [CLC 105-108]wherein it was held that jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something. 7. In view of above legal and factual position it is submitted thatlt is not a case of lack of…

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.383 /Bang/2022 Assessment year : 2017-18 M/s. Haris Marine Products, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Trinity Commercial Complex, Income Tax [Central], N.G. Road, Attavara, Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN: AAAFH 9819G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD) Date of hearing : 21.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal…

Sadhu Salian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 Sadhu Salian, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of D.No.16, MMV Bhavan, Income Tax [Central], Bunder Malpe, Bengaluru. Udupi – 576 106. PAN: ASZPS 5632F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD) Date of hearing : 21.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Principal C…

Vanishree Holabsu Shettar, Guledgudd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 270/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Vanishree Holabasu Shettar, Vs. The Principal Commissioner # 1, Hiral Street, of Income Tax, Behind Darak Medical, Hubli. Post : Guledgudd – 587 203. PAN: AEKPM 1689M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 14.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is agai…