How many judgments cite CIT v. Gopal Purohit?

254 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gopal Purohit (336 ITR 287), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gopal Purohit come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(38), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 68, Section 10(34), Section 131.

CIT v. Gopal Purohit

336 ITR 287High Court2011#330 most cited

What is CIT v. Gopal Purohit authority for?

The gain from delivery-based share transactions, where shares are consistently treated as investments and valued at cost in the books, is assessable as capital gains and not business income. An assessee's consistent stand on classifying share transactions should generally be followed by the assessing officer in subsequent years.

254

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gopal Purohit · Section 10(38) · Section 14A · Section 143(3) · share transactions · capital gains · business income · investment or stock-in-trade · consistency · Supreme Court SLP dismissed

Also reported as

228 CTR 582188 Taxmann 14034 DTR 52

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 68 Section 10(34)Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

long term capital gain section 14a section 10 previous year transfer company section 143 business india prescribed section 143(3)total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Gopal Purohit

OMPRAKASH RAMSURAT YADAV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4870/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2015-16 Omprakash Ramsurat Yadav Vs. Dcit-Circle 24(1) 1403-A, Rna Heights, Mumbai J.V.L.R. Road (Respondent) Andheri East Mumbai- 400 093 Pan : Aalpy7169F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Aamod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K Chhatrapati Sr.DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 21(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)

…accordingly. It is submitted that the facts being identical, principle of consistency required that the same relief was given to the appellant. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 and Aroni Commercial Ltd., vs. DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 60 taxman 248. It is submitted that even in respect of Mr. C.L. Dubey who is the another lessor, who had rented out three office premises of equal area, the Assessing Officer has accepted the rent of Rs.21,00,000/-…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI vs. M/S. S.R.K.M. STEELS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) M/S S.R.K.M Steels (P) Ltd. Room No.707, 7Th Floor, Aayakar M/S Srkm Steels (P) Ltd. Lokhra Bhawan Poorva, G.S. Road, Road, P.O. Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Guwahati-781005, Assam 781034, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR

Section 133(6)

…allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year" This view has been followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neo Ploy Pack (P) Ltd [(2000) 245 ITR 492] and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) 336 ITR 287]. Further, theHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Realest Builders and Services Limited((2008) 307 ITR 202] held, as follows: "In cases where the department wants to tax an assessee on the ground of the liability arising in a particular year, it should always ascertain the method of accounting followed by the assessee in the past and whe…

OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

ITA 4777/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

…chase and sale of\nshares, transactions through the electronic system of Stock\nExchange split a single transaction into numerous transactions.\nThis gives an unrealistic figure of the number of transactions.\"\n11. In the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit [2010] 228 CTR 582,\nan issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court, as to whether the transactions of purchase and\nsale of shares is assessable as business profits or as capital\ngains. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court upheld the\ndecision of the tribunal that the resultant gain is assessable as\nCapital gains instead of Business In…

M/S. OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

ITA 4542/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

…ase and sale of\nshares, transactions through the electronic system of Stock\nExchange split a single transaction into numerous transactions.\nThis gives an unrealistic figure of the number of transactions.\"\n\n11. In the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit [2010] 228 CTR 582,\nan issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court, as to whether the transactions of purchase and\nsale of shares is assessable as business profits or as capital\ngains. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court upheld the\ndecision of the tribunal that the resultant gain is assessable as\nCapital gains instead of Business In…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…officer subject to the condition that the stand taken by the assessee in a particular year would be followed in subsequent years. To the same effect are the following decisions rendered by the various benches of the Hon’ble Tribunal:  CIT v. Gopal Purohit: 336 ITR 287 (Bom.) (Supreme Court has dismissed the departmental appeal vide CC 16802/2010: 334 ITR 308 (St.))  Jindal Photo Investment Ltd.: 334 ITR 307 (St.) (SC)  CIT v. Rohit Anand: 327 ITR 445 (Del)  CIT v. Vinay Mittal: 208 Taxman 106 (Del) [SLP dismissed by SC]  CIT v. Devasan Investment Pvt. Ltd. : 365 ITR 452 (Del) (Supreme Court has dismissed t…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI FINANCE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3632/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10(38)

…ion, she placed reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sunil Bansal;[2022] 138 taxmann.com 20&ManojKumar Samdaria; [2014] 52 taxmann.com 247 and also on the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit; 336 ITR 287. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative (hereinafter, the ‘AR’) contended that this appeal was squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the assessee’s own case in the ITA No. 6064/Del./2014 (order dated 23.10.2018). Further, he also brought our attention to the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Cour…

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das &

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 40

…d a particular piece of land as investment and other part of his land as stock-in-trade. In this connection reference can be made to the CBDT Circular No. 4/2008 dated 15.06.2007 and decision of the Hon'ble High Bombay Court in the case of Gopal Prohit [2011] 336 ITR 287. 30. These facts clearly establish that the assessee had discharged onus in proving the intention at the time of purchase of land is only to hold the subject lands as investment and adduced necessary evidence on record in terms of the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kalpetta Estates Ktd, v, CUT [1990] 185 ITR 318…

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…(Del.); CIT vs. International Travel House Lid. 194 Тахтап 324; CIT vs. DLF Power Limited 329 ITR 289 (Del.); CIT vs. Eicher Limited 294 ITR 310 (Del.) CIT vs. Ashish Rajput, 320 ITR 674 (Del.); CIT vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Del.); CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582 (Bom.); and CIT vs. PNB Finance and Industries Limited, 236 CTR 1 (Del.).…

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

…f Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Nagpur dated 21/04/2014 vide appeal No. CIT(A)-I/296/2009-10 in case of Smt. KiranBalani –Vs.- Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nagpur 9. I.T.A. No. 4522/Mum/2012 (ITAT, Mumbai) DharmeshManibhai Patel –Vs- Income Tax Officer 10. (2011) 336 ITR 287 (High Court, Bombay) Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- GopalPurohit Capital gains-Vis-à-vis business income-Transactions in shares- Tribunal has entered a pure finding of fact that the assessee is engaged in two different types of transactions namely, investment in shares and dealing in shares for the purposes of business-It held that the delivery…

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

ITA 410/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

…ax (Appeals)-I, Nagpur dated 21/04/2014 vide appeal No. CIT(A)-I/406/2010-11 in case of Shri Suresh Balani (HUF) –Vs.- Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Nagpur 10. I.T.A. No. 4522/Mum/2012 (ITAT, Mumbai) Dharmesh Manibhai Patel -Vs- Income Tax Officer 11. (2011) 336 ITR 287 (High Court, Bombay) Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Gopal Purohit Capital gains-Vis-à-vis business income-Transactions in shares-Tribunal has entered a pure finding of fact that the assessee is engaged in two different types of transactions namely, investment in shares and dealing in shares for the purposes of business-It held that the delivery…

M/S. CAMPUS BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2850/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2850/िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2010-11) Templeton Stockgrowth P. Ltd., (Erstwhile M/S. Campus Buildcon P. Ltd.) D-248, Office 103 First Floor, Abhishek Business Centre, Gali No. 10, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadcc-3617-P बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 25(1), New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Salil Kapoor & Shivam Yadav, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 22/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 20.02.2017, For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised A Solitary Issue I.E. Treating Of ‘Short Term Capital Gain’ On Sale Of Shares As ‘Business Income’ Of The Assessee. 3. Shri Salil Kapoor, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That During The Period Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Sold Shares

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, and Shivam Yadav, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

…two portfolios. He pointed that the Assessing Officer in para 4.5 of the order has accepted that the assessee is holding shares as investments. To further substantiate his contentions, he placed reliance on various decisions including: CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 336 ITR 287 (Bombay); CIT vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Delhi); CIT vs. Ess Jay Enterprises P Ltd., 173 Taxman 1 (Delhi); & CIT vs. Gulmohor Finance Ltd. 170 Taxman 483 (Delhi). 4. Per contra, Shri Surender Pal representing the department vehemently supported findings of the AO and the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have exa…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KRUTI LALITKUMAR JAIN, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1554/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…considered as business income. It is a settled law that as individual can hold certain assets of the same class as an investment as well as stock in trade. For this proposition, the assessee places reliance on the following decisions 1. CIT v. Gopal Purohit [336 ITR 287 (Bom)] 2. CIT v. Yatish Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [359 ITR 320] 3. CIT v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lai [73 ITR 652] 6 9] In the present case, the assessee in her individual capacity has held the lands as capital asset. Now, simply because the assessee is a partner/director in concerns engaged in real activity does not mean that the transaction undertaken…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ECGC LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3812/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234Section 234B

…in same, orders for the earlier year should followe. It is said that principles of res judicata do not apply to tax proceedings, but principles of consistency are very much applicable. The Hon'ble jurisdictional high court has, in the matter of Gopal Purohit (336 ITR 287), held as under: "......the Tribunal has observed in paragraph 8.1 of its judgment that the assessee has followed a consistent practice in regard to the nature of the activities, the manner of keeping records and the presentation of shares as investment at the end of the year, in all the years. The Revenue submitted that a different view should b…

ECGC LIMITED,ECGC BHAWAN vs. ACIT, NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI

ITA 3551/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234Section 234B

DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI PRAKASH BHOJWANI, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 172/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Shri Prakash Bhojwani, 1(1), H.No. 7, Parika Phase-I, Bhopal Walmi Road, बनाम/ Chuna Bhatti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue / Respondent) (Assessee / Appellant) Pan: Abvpb 8825 E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

Section 111ASection 111USection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…days to 41, 44, 47 days, even as high as 158 days in one case. Therefore, the assessee’s activity except ‘intra-day transactions’ was very much in the nature of investment activity and rightly accepted so by CIT(A). Reliance is placed on CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit 336 ITR 287 (Bom HC) where it was held thus: “2. The Tribunal has entered a pure finding of fact that the assessee was engaged in two different types of transactions. The first set of transactions involved investment in shares. The second set of transactions involved dealing in shares for the purposes of business (described in paragraph 8.3 of the judgment…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Vs. Hamdard Laboratories (India) Circle-1(1)-Exemption 2A/3, Hamdard Building, New Delhi. Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110 002 PAN AAATH0842H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri R.M. Mehta, CA Department by: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR Date of Hearing: 31.08.2023 Date of 27.09.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30.03.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Ta…

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2485/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)

…. G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT 11959135 FIR 594 (SC) 6. CIT v. Mohakampur Ice & Cold Storage 12-0051281 [FR 354 (Allahabad) 7. Raja J. Rameshwar Rao v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 179 (SC) 8. CIT v. R. Ramaiah ] 9841 146 ITR 39 (Kar) 9. CIT v. Gopal Purohit [2010] 336 ITR 287 (Born.) 10. Suni I Kurnar Ganeriwal v. DCIT [2011] 134 lTD 179 (Mum - Trib.) 11. Principle of consistency should be accepted Radhasoami Salsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) 12. CIT v. Dairnia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd [2006] 281 ITR 346 (Del.) 13. CIT v. Gopal Purohit [2010] 336 ITR 287 (Born.) Classification of interest income as income fro…

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

GOLDEN SQUARE CHS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-22 (1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assesee are allowed

ITA 572/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 572 & 573/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Golden Square Chsltd., Vs. Ito – 22(1)(5),Roomno. Cst Road, Sunder Nagar 323,3Rdfloor,Piramal Kalina, Santicruz (E) Chamber,Lalbaug, Mumbai. 400098 Parel, Mumbai.400012 Pan/Gir No. : Aaaag2527M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Kunal Lunawat & Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Chandekar.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Lunawat, &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 572 & 573/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Golden Square CHSLtd., Vs. ITO – 22(1)(5),RoomNo. CST Road, Sunder Nagar 323,3rdFloor,Piramal Kalina, Santicruz (E) Chamber,Lalbaug, Mumbai. 400098 Parel, Mumbai.400012 PAN/GIR No. : AAAAG2527M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Kunal Lunawat, & Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain.AR Respondent by : Shri Rajendra Chandekar.DR Date of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 04.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: These are the two appeals fi…

Showing 1–20 of 254 · Page 1 of 13

...