How many judgments cite CIT v. Metachem Industries?

137 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Metachem Industries (245 ITR 160), spanning 2016 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 145(3), Section 147, Section 133(6).

CIT v. Metachem Industries

245 ITR 160High Court2000#740 most cited

What is CIT v. Metachem Industries authority for?

An assessee introducing cash credit or capital is not required to prove the ultimate source of funds of the creditor or investor once the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with the immediate creditor/investor are established. The assessee's burden is discharged upon providing a satisfactory explanation and producing the person who deposited the amount.

137

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Metachem Industries · 245 ITR 160 · Section 68 · onus of proof cash credit · source of source · capital introduction · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor

Also reported as

116 Taxmann 572

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 145(3)Section 147 Section 133(6)Section 144 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

onus of proof source of source bogus share capital addition under section 68 creditworthiness of the creditor share application money addition u/s 68 section 269ss section 269 genuineness of the transaction rejection of books of account loose papers

Judgments citing CIT v. Metachem Industries

INCOME TAX OFFICER-KHARGONE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN KHARGONE vs. IBRAHIM ABBASALI BOHRA, BARWAHA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 120/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

…ible in law. Reliance is placed on decision of SC in C. Vasantlal [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC) Page 6 of 11 IBRAHIM ABBASALI BOHRA ITA No. 119&120/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14&2014-15 6. Attention is invited to the decision in case of CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP) where it is held that the assessee-firm cannot ask that person who makes the investment whether the money invested is properly taxed or not. The assessee is only to explain that this investment has been made by the particular individual, and it is the responsibility of that individual to account for the investment made by him. If that person…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN KHARGONE vs. IBRAHIM ABBASALI BOHRA, BARWAHA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 119/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

GS & SD ASSOCIATES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2767/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2767/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gs & Sd Associates, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 03, Vania Street, Kundrathur, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Chennai 600 069. Chennai. [Pan:Aaqfg8838C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 68

…partner, the same cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee (FIRM) as the burden of the assessee (FIRM) stands discharged. The ld. AR placed on record the 4 I.T.A. No.2767/Chny/25 decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore reported in 245 ITR 160 (MP) in support of his contention by referring to para 5 of the said decision. He vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the order passed in the case of Shri G. Srinivasan, where the sum of ₹.7,00,00,000/- was determined as income in his hands and therefore, cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee assessee (FIRM)…

ITO, WARD- 2(3)(4), HAPUR, HAPUR vs. SHIVA AND SHIVA, HAPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed

ITA 1945/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayito, Ward 2(3)(4), Vs. Shiva & Shiva Hapur Near Sri Ram Mandir, 3-A, Surya Vihar, L.N. School Marg, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Garh Road, Hapur, Up Hapur (Pan: Adxfs1969A) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 101/Del/2025 (Ita No. 1945/Del/2025) (Ay 2020-21) Shiva & Shiva Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3)(4), Near Sri Ram Mandir, Hapur, Up L.N. School Marg, Garh Road, Hapur (Pan: Adxfs1969A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Sh. Ayaan Singh, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. Ayaan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…evidences were received 6 through the e-filing portal and thereafter no adverse comment or finding was recorded”. It is noted that firm cannot be taxed for partners’ explained capital, in view of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) wherein, it has been held that once the partner owns and explains the source, no addition can be made in the firm’s hands. Also, in the case of CIT vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance (1983) 141 ITR 706 (All.) wherein, it was held that if partners are identifiable and confirm investment, firm cannot be taxed. It is noted that in the instant case each…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 34(1), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI vs. GURKIRAT BPO SERVICES LLP, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Department is dismissed

ITA 697/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Gurkirat Bpo Services Llp, Circle 34(1), G-21, Flat No.256-257, Delhi. Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 009. Pan: Aaqfg4414J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Y.K. Sud, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhur, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…AT Cuttackin the case of Panda Fuels Vs ITO(ITA 07/CTK/2018) that a firm cannot be assessed for the unexplained cash 19 credit w’s 68 of LT. Act, 1961 in respect of capital introduced by the partner “ 6.6 In the case of CIT vs Metachem Industries Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) Hon’ble MP High Court held that,“so for as the responsibility of the assessee is concerned, it is satisfactorily discharged. Whether that person is an income tax payer or not or from where he has brought this money is not the responsibility of the firm. The moment the firm gives a satisfactory explanation and produces the person who has depo…

NIDHI RANI,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3323/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani Vs Ito 1361, Sector-25, Part-Ii Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat Pan-Arrpr9400P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…cy (P.) Ltd., (2018) 257 Taxman 390 (Del).  CIT vs. Real Time Marketing Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 0035 (Del).  CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal, (2014) 366 ITR 0217 (Raj).  Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO, (2010) 187 Taxman 0338 (Raj).  CIT vs. Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160, High Court of Madhya Pradesh.  Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT & Anr., (2003) 264 ITR 0254 (Gau).  CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel, (1997) 224 ITR 0180 (P&H).  ACIT vs Dayal Steel (P) Ltd. in ITA 9121/Del./2019, date of order 11-01- 2024. Delhi ITAT.  AO vs Asit Surendrabhai Shah and ors. in ITA 945/Ahd./2018, Date of order 02-08-2023. Ahmedabad ITA…

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 673/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…pon the assessee firm stood discharged once it was explained and resultantly the addition so made in the hands of the assessee firm may kindly be deleted. In this regards we place our reliance on the following case laws: (a) CIT Vs Metchem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (Madras HC): “5. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) examined the matter in detail and found that Shri S. K. Gupta was the real owner of the business. The explanation given by the assessee was found to be satisfactory and he deleted the aforesaid three entries. The same finding of fact has been affirmed by the Tribunal. Once it i…

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 672/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 61/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 59/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 57/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

J.K.V. STONEX,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KISHANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: ShriSandeep Jhanwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 542/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. J K V Stonex cuke The ITO Vs. J-16, M/s. SCLJ & Associates Ward- 1 Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur-302015 Kishangarh LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFJ 1014 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :ShriSandeep Jhanwar, CA jktLo dh vksjl…

SRS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO(E), FARIDABAD

ITA 941/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…onouncements and prayed for the deletion of the additions so made:- [i] Mangilal Agarwal (Late) vs ACIT 300 ITR 372 (Raj.); [ii] Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO (Raj.HC) 219 CTR 571; [iii] Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO 220 CTR 622 (Raj.); [iv] CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP); [v] Tolaram Daga vs CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam); [vi] CIT vs Shri Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (Pun. & Har.); and [vii] Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT & another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati). 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submits that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden…

ESS KAY FABRICATION,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-1(4), GURGAON

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

ITA 2924/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…TR 457 (Punj. & Har.); (ii)Commissioner of Income-tax v. Burma Electro Corpn. [2003] 126 TAXMAN 533 (Punj. & Har.) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Md. Perwez Ahmed [2004] 268 ITR 381 (PAT.) (iv) Commissioner Income-tax of V. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP) (v) Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Patna v. Anurag Rice Mills [2017] 88 taxmann.com 420 (Patna) (vi)Nova Medicare v. Income-tax Officer [2023] 150 taxmann.com 363 (Telangana) (vii)Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex [2018] 89 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) 5 [Department SLP dismissed-Principal Commissioner of…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR

ITA 288/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…eness of the transaction. Only after the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts to the department. 7 DCIT vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena On the other hand, it was held in the case of CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP) that where the assessee-firm had satisfactorily explained the credits standing in the name of its partners, the responsibility of the assessee stands discharged. Once it is established that the amount has been invested by a particular person, be he a partner or an individual, then the responsibility of the assessee-firm Is over. The assessee…

THE DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIR. 2(1),, NAGPUR vs. M/S MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 386/NAG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132(1)

…to furnish the changed address of the said company, even subsequent to this. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which is reported in 245 ITR 160, to state that source of source cannot be asked, whereas in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made independent enquiries with regard to the concerns, which had invested in M/s Torrent Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., which is in accordance with the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court. 4) Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of…

THE DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIR. 2(1),, NAGPUR vs. M/S MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 385/NAG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132(1)Section 153C

…to furnish the changed address of the said company, even subsequent to this. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which is reported in 245 ITR 160, to state that source of source cannot be asked, whereas in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made independent enquiries with regard to the concerns, which had invested in M/s Lupin Commodities Pvt. Ltd., which is in accordance with the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court. 4) Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble High Court o…

EVALUATIONZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any reason to uphold the orders of the learned lower authorities confirming the disallowance of Rs

ITA 1103/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 Evaluationz India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner # 305, Royal Heritage, of Income, Old Madras Road, TIN Factory, Circle 2(1)(1), Benniganahalli, Doorvani Nagar, Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 016. PAN: AABCE 5590M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharis…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 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.252/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2, Nagpur v/s M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7th Floor, Poonam Plaza, Palm Road ……………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 AABCN9937H Appellant by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Vikash Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the impugned order dated 01/…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

ITA 247/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Agrawal

Section 131Section 148Section 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.247/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2, Nagpur v/s M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 7th Floor, Poonam Plaza, Palm Road ……………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 AABCN9937H Appellant by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Vikas Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated…

Showing 1–20 of 137 · Page 1 of 7