How many judgments cite CIT v. Manu Engg?

505 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Manu Engg (122 ITR 306), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Manu Engg come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 68, Section 132.

CIT v. Manu Engg

122 ITR 306High Court1980#133 most cited

What is CIT v. Manu Engg authority for?

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

505

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Manu Engg · Manu Engineering · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · levy of penalty · penalty notice · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars of income · ambiguous penalty order · non-application of mind · penalty unsustainable

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 68 Section 132 Section 153A Section 154

Issues it is cited on

section 271(l)section 271(l)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income penalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars section 274 non-application of mind concealment of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271

Judgments citing CIT v. Manu Engg

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…lars. The apex court in the case of Ashok Pai[2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of Virgo Marketing P. Ltd., reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1785/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of such income. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Whiteford India Itd [2013] 38 taxman.com 15, Mamu Engineering Works, [1980]122 ITR 306 and New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642, the penalty order passed is liable to be struck down, the Ld. Authorized Representative emphasized. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the appellant in this regard and it is noticed that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Whitefort India Ltd. (2013) 38 ta…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1750/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI T.R.SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1741 & 1750/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical The DCIT, Industries Ltd. Central Circle-2(1)(1) SPARC, Tandalja, Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara 390 020 PAN No. : AADCS 3124 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) And The DCIT, Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Central Circle-2(1)(1) Industries Ltd. Vadodara – 390 007 SPARC, Tandalja, Vadodara 390 020 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue by…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1741/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Panjurajan Ganesan, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ’डी’न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यागयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ITA Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, No.74A, velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [PAN:ABYPG3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocat…

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T Ashok Pai - 292 ITR 11 (SC) held that “concealment of income" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" carry different connotations. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Manu Engineering Works -122 ITR 306 (Guj.) held that the penalty order has to be clear as to limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Further, on the identical facts, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Nayan C. Shah vs. ITO [Tax Appeal No. 543 of 2012 (Guj- HC)] held as follows: "11. Another notable aspect of the matter is that while…

Nayankumar Jayantilal Balu, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

…ailed to appreciate this legal issue—Penalty not sustainable-Tribunal having failed to take into consideration and deal with decision of the jurisdictional High Court, it committed an error in law—CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1979) 8 CTR (Guj) 141 : (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj) followed. It is also worthwhile to mention that subsequently the SLP was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SSAS Emerald Meadows in CC No. 11485 of 2016 order dated 05.08.2016 in which the same law was confirmed by approving the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. (iv) The Rajasthan High Court is also following the ab…

Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4 (3)(1), Bandra

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3604/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 90Section 90A

…the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (supra), has also clearly held that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are two separate connotations. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manu Engineering Works (122 ITR 306) has also clearly laid down the principle that it is incumbent upon the AO to come to a positive finding "as to whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income". In the absence of such clear-cut findings, the penalty order is liable to be struck off. On the aforesaid analyzations, we are of the considere…

Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR (Thru' V.C.)

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271A

…ars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appr…

Indian Chronicle Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…or levy of penalty was not clearly mentioned in the notice, then the ITA No. 1275/Ahd/2012 [Indian Chronicle Ltd. Vs. ITO] A.Y. 2007-08- 6 – penalty cannot be levied. In this regard, he has relied upon the following decisions: ✓ Manu engineering Works- (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj]; ✓ Whiteford India Ltd. - (2013) 38 taxmann.com 15 (Guj); ✓ New SorathiaEngg. Co. (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj); ✓ Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory -359 ITR 565 (Kar); 7. The Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that when the LTCG, which was claimed as exempt income u/s.10(38) of the Act, was duly disclosed in the return of income, tax audit re…

Dakshinamoorthy Kumaresan, Thiruvarur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvarur

ITA 2452/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ars. The apex court in the case of Ashok Pai [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of Virgo Marketing P. Ltd., reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has t…

Balaji Metal and Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1486/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…urt in the case of T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11/161 Taxman 340 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Manu Engg. [1980] 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P.) Ltd. [2008] 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice ha…

The Koraput Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Jeypore, Koraput vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 348/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack19 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ,कटक आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण कटक कटक "यायपीठ "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/ITA No.348/CTK/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) वष" The Koraput Central Cooperative Vs ITO, NFAC, Delhi/ Bank Limited, ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur Head Office, NKT Road, Vikram Nagar, Near Laxmi Talkies Jeypore, Koraput PAN No. : AAAAT 2619 K (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant…

M/S. D.K. Industries, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1417/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(1), Bengaluru vs. Smt. Vankadara Padmavathi, Hospet, Karnataka

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Kothari Jewels Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal, file filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 964/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITR 11 at page 6 KOTHARI JEWELS PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujrat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxmann 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be app…

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited Maholi Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262001, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur-New, Sitapur

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

ITA 164/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y.-2014-15 Co-operative Cane Development The Assistant Commissioner Union Limited, Maholi, Ayyubi vs. of Income Tax, Sitapur (New) Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262001, U.P. PAN:AAATC4152F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT (D.R.) Date of hearing: 13.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R PER SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal against…

Jamna Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 540/JPR/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…lars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujrat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxmn 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appro…

Harshal Suresh Karvir, Palghar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 4477/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Harshal Suresh Karvir National Faceless Assessment Centre 2Nd Floor, E Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru 397, Sutar Ali, Chinchani, Vs. Palghar, Palghar-401 503 Stadium, Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Harshal Suresh Karvir National Faceless Assessment Centre 2nd Floor, E Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru 397, Sutar Ali, Chinchani, Vs. Palghar, Palghar-401 503 Stadium, Delhi PAN/GIR No. BHZPK 0168 E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tanmay Phadke Respondent by : Shri P. D. Chogule Date of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe…