How many judgments cite CIT v. Mukta Metal Works?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mukta Metal Works (336 ITR 555), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mukta Metal Works come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 144, Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 142(1), Section 147.

CIT v. Mukta Metal Works

336 ITR 555High Court2011#6074 most cited

What is CIT v. Mukta Metal Works authority for?

Additional evidence that is relevant and required for imparting justice must be admitted and appreciated by the appellate authorities.

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. Mukta Metal Works · 336 ITR 555 · additional evidence · admission of additional evidence · Rule 46A · justice · fair adjudication

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 144 Section 234A Section 234B Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 234C Section 46A

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidence section 234a reasonable cause section 115 section 68 section 11 section 144 nfac interest person document total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Mukta Metal Works

VINAY MITTAL,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 382/JODH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevinay Mittal Income Tax Officer, 3, J Block, Sriganganagar (Raj.) Ward No. -1, Ward No. 1 Keshrisinghpur Sriganganagar Sriganganagar Pan No. Avopm6894P Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue By Shri P.M. Mirdha, Addl. Cit- Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The Nfac/ Cit (A)] Dated 22.03.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 280Section 44ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Vinay Mittal Income Tax Officer, 3, J Block, Sriganganagar (Raj.) Ward No. -1, Ward No. 1 Keshrisinghpur Sriganganagar Sriganganagar PAN No. AVOPM6894P Assessee by Shri Virendra Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue by Shri P.M. Mirdha, Addl. CIT- DR (Virtual) Date of Hearing 16.02.2026. Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. ORDER DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [h…

M/S PARASNATH FUELS (P) LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 213/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalparasnath Fuels Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle 1(1), 28 Feet Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Vs Dehradun - 248198 Pan-Aaicp2190D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am, This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appellate Centre [Cit(A), In Short], Dated 08.10.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10104734 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dt. 08.10.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Assumption Of Jurisdiction In Initiating The Proceedings U/S 147 & Passing The Impugned Order U/S 147/144B & That Too Without Complying With Mandatory Conditions U/S 147 To 151A Parasnath Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 68

…2-03-2012. (ITAT, Agra) * Electro (Jaipur) (P) Ltd. vs Inspecting Assisting Commissioner, 26 ITD 236. (ITAT, Delhi) * Rajmoti Industries vs ITO 52 ITD 286 (ITAT, Ahmadabad) * Mahavir Prasad Gupta vs JCIT 101 TTJ 1078. (ITAT, Delhi) * CIT vs Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555 (P&H) It is further submitted that Your Honours have ample powers in this regard under the law as explained by Jurisdictional Delhi Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 351 ITR 0057, dated Parasnath Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT 14.1.2011, we humbly submit that in order to make substantial justice and to prevent failure o…

SHER SINGH,SANGRUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGRUR

ITA 749/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Soni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 11BSection 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 69a

…d aside the evidence. In fact, once the Ld. CIT(A) admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A, the same had to be given full weightage. Reliance was placed on decisions including Tek Ram (Dead) Through LRs v. CIT 357 ITR 133 (SC) and CIT v. Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 (P&H), wherein it was held that additional evidence necessary for just adjudication must be admitted and appreciated. 7.3 Accordingly, the AR prayed that the entire addition sustained of ₹12,25,600/- deserves to be deleted as the deposits stand explained from disclosed and exempt sources. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representat…

LATE SH. LAKHA SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR HIRA SINGH DERA PYARA SINGH BARNA THANESAR KURUKSHETRA,KURUKSHETRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, NEAR COMMUNITY HALL SECTOR-5, KURUKSHETRA HARYANA, KURUKSHETRA

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

ITA 1151/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

…d in not admitting the additional evidences as submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tek Ram reported in 357 ITR 133 and of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mukta Metal reported in 336 ITR 555. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer completed reassessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on 09.12.2019, determining total income of Rs.39,40,000/-. The additions comprised (i) Rs.60,00,000/- towards alleg…

MITHU RAM,DIRBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SUNAM

In the result, ground no. 4 & 5 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 621/CHANDI/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Cit(A) Proves This Fact. 2. That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause In Not Attending To The Proceedings Before The Cit(A) Due Oversight/ Skip Of Mail Regarding The Date Of Hearing Because Busy In Filling The Income Tax Returns.

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Chopra, Advocate for Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 68

…ence and the matter may be restored for necessary verification. It was submitted that these documents goes to the root of the matter and reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of M/s Mukta Metal Works as reported in 336 ITR 555 wherein it was held that if additional evidence is of some relevant and is required for imparting justice, the same be admitted. 22. Per contra, the ld DR is heard who has relied on the order of the lower authorities and it was submitted that the assessee has already been allowed sufficient opportunity during the assessment and appellate proceed…

HARISH CHANDER ,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(v)

…al evidence filed before him which was further step to prove the genuineness, identify and creditworthiness of the donor and the evidence should have been admitted in view of the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555. 5. That the appellant craves to add, to alter, to delete and or to amend any of the above grounds of appeal before the final hearing.” 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Assessing Officer was in possession of information regarding deposit of cash of R. 15,85,500/- in the bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank. Since…

PAWAN KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 43(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7809/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

…the case and law including judicial pronouncement therefore same may kindly be set aside. Reliance is placed on the following:- a) ITA/140/DEL/2018 AY 2009-10 Dharampal Tyagi Vs. ITO, Meerut b) Tek Ram 262 CTR 118 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555 (Hon'ble P&H High Court) c) Dwarka Prasad 63 ITD 1 (Pat) (TM) Ganibhai Wahabbhai 232 ITR 900 MP d) Sri Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 669(Karnataka HC) 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of principle of natural justice appellant prays that assessment order passed u/s 144 r. w. s. 147 may be…

BANSAL RICE TRADERS,SANGRUR vs. ITO-WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

…Copy of Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account 3. Cash Book 4. Acknowledgment Slip 5. Computation Sheet 6. Rectified form 26AS Reliance was placed on the following case laws : • Tek Ram (Dead) through LRs Vs. CIT 357 ITR 133 (SC) • CIT Vs. Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 (P&H) • UOP LLC Vs. ADIT, ITAT, Delhi “F” Bench 108 ITD 186 • CIT Vs. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai 232 ITR 900 (MP) • Electra (Jaipur)(P) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner 26 ITD 236 (Del) • CIT vs. Parimal Kanti Chanda 291 ITR 77 (Gauhati) • Hingora Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2109/Ahd/2008 (Ahd Trib)) • DCIT Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal in…

THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, C-1, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 1412/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 17

…fresh disposal of the appeal, after accepting the documents that were or might be filed by the assessee and leaving all the contentions of both parties open.” 10.3 Similarly the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukta Metal Works [2011] 336 ITR 555 (P&H) held as under: “ (ii) That the report of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory was a relevant material and so was the affidavit of the searched person. The additional evidence was necessary for just decision of the matter. The Tribunal was not justified in declining to consider the additional evidence comprising the opinion of the laboratory of…

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 307/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.S. Bains, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(3)

…onclusion whether appeal requires to be allowed or to be rejected- Order passed by High Court set aside-Matter remanded back to High Court – Appeal disposed of.” (ii) Decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukta Metal Works reported in 336 ITR 555 wherein it was held that where the additional evidence is must for just decision of the case, the same deserves to be admitted. (iii) Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Text Hundred India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 197 Taxman 128 (Delhi) in which it has been held that “……….It is well-settled that the procedure is handmade of justice and ju…

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.S. Bains, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(3)

M/S ROLAND EXPORT,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 1359/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Annapurna Gupta& Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1359/Chd/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Roland Exports, The Acit, बनाम 407-C, Circle-7, The Mall, Ludhiana Ludhiana; 141001 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaffr6571A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing Through Video Conferencing िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 उदघोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2021 आदेश/Order आदेश आदेश आदेश Per R.L. Negi:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 80I

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ अिधकरण च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ,“ ” च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI R.L NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.1359/CHD/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s Roland Exports, The ACIT, बनाम 407-C, Circle-7, The Mall, Ludhiana Ludhiana; 141001 "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAFFR6571A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing through video Conferencing िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir S…

VERSATILE VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 26(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3031/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kantm/S. Versatile Vinimay Income Tax Officer Private Ltd. Vs. Ward-5(4), Kolkata. 1705, 4Th Floor Onkar Bhawan Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 Pan –Aaccv 6712F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

…have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram (Dead Trhough LRS.) vs. CIT, 262 CTR 118 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mukta Metal Works vs. CIT, 336 ITR 555 held that additional evidences be admitted as relevant and required to be looked into. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 57 and CIT Vs. Virgin Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 336 held that additional evidences being necessary and crucial for disposal of appeals shal…

ANIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1753/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri C.S. AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.1752 & 1753/Del./2017 Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Shri Anil Bhalla, The ACIT, Farm No.4, Hyde Park, Prakrit Marg, Village vs., Central Circle-8, Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN AEEPB9416N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate. For Revenue : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the appeals by the sa…

ANIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1752/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri C.S. AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

AAMANTARAN VTRAVEL CO. P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5602/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: And Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 40

…idered in order to decide the issue whether provisions of Section 194I would apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tekram 262 CTR 118 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 admitted additional evidences being relevant and required to be looked into for deciding the matter in issue. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice between the parties and considering that 13 ITA.No.5602/Del./2018 Aamantaran Travel Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. the additional evidences are relevant and goes to the root of the matter, we a…

DHARAMPAL TYAGI ,MEERUT CANTT vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), MEERUT

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

ITA 140/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Amresh Vashisht, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 142(1)Section 148

…A) therefore instead of rejecting these additional evidences should have admitted the additional evidences for deciding the appeal on merits. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram 262 CTR 118 and Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555, admitted the additional evidences as being relevant and required to be looked into. 6.1. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) should have admitted these additional evidences and decided the appeal of assessee on merits. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to admit the addi…

IQROOP SINGH SEKHON,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 258/CHANDI/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Iqroop Singh SekhonFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 250(6)

…essment because of the serious illness. 7. Having gone through the additional evidences, we find that the evidences goes to the root cause of the dispute. Relying on the judgments in the case of Tek Ram Vs CIT 262 CTR 118(Supreme Court) and Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 (P&H), the additional evidences are being admitted. 8. The Ld. DR argued that based on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Tolla Ram Hasso Mal 153 Taxmann 532(M.P) (2006), and also on the rationale in the case of Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 928/2001 (Delhi High Court) and submitted that the assessee has been…

M/S. PIYUSH BUILDWELL INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2735/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Kuldip Singh:A.Y. 2007-08 M/S Piyush Buildwell India Ltd., Vs. Dcit Central Circle-1, A-16.B-1,Mohan Co-Op., Industrial Faridabad. Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aadcp 7767 M ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Appellant By : Shri A.K. Mishra Fca Respondent By : Shri V.R. Sonbhadra Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-02-2016 Date Of Order : 15-03-2016. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Mishra FCAFor Respondent: Shri V.R. Sonbhadra Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH: JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2007-08 M/s Piyush Buildwell India Ltd., Vs. DCIT Central circle-1, A-16.b-1,Mohan Co-op., Industrial Faridabad. Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. PAN: AADCP 7767 M ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Appellant by : Shri A.K. Mishra FCA Respondent by : Shri V.R. Sonbhadra Sr. DR Date of hearing : 28-02-2016 Date of order : 15-03-2016. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:- This is assessee’s appeal against the CIT(A)’s order dated 31.03.2015 in appeal no. 101/57/IT(L…