Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 10(37).

CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products?

163 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products (231 ITR 53), spanning 2012 to 2026.

231 ITR 53Supreme Court of India1998#602 most cited

What is CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products authority for?

The term 'record' under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act includes all material available to the Commissioner at the time of his examination, not merely the records that were available to the Assessing Officer when the original assessment order was passed.

163

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products · Section 263 · meaning of record · revisional power · material available to Commissioner · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · 231 ITR 53 · scope of 263(1) · examination by CIT

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 145A(b)

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry doctrine of merger section 263(1)malabar industrial revision u/s 263 non application of mind erroneous and prejudicial mercantile system of accounting section 263 section 26 income-tax officer

Judgments citing CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products

Seth Madan Lal Palriwala Foundation, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

ITA 4670/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IT can rely includes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products, (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous.” 29. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) held that when enquiries were certainly conducted by the AO as in the instant…

Klaxon Trading (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 3, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7265/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 7265/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) M/S Klaxon Trading (P.) Ltd., Vs Pcit, Warehouse A-97B, Khasra Central – 3, No.50/4, New Delhi Behind Friends Dharam Kanta Shahbad Daulatpur, New Delhi – 110 042 (Pan : Aaack 3487 E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 263

…n 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512] 7. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 8. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. From the perusal of the Assessment Order, it can be seen that cash deposited was enquired by the Assessing Officer specifically vide his questionnaire to which the detailed explanation with evidences was submitted before the…

Nipha Exports Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 873/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…nt passed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary power have been given to the Commissioner and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, normally when Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry on a particular issue, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the impugned assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as Assessin…

Motilal Salecha HUF, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2943/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Motilal Salecha Huf, Pr. Cit-31, Room No. 301, C-13 44/2, Ground Floor, Suresh Pratyakshakar Bahvan, Bandra Vs. Bhavan, Road No. 6, Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. Jawahar Nagar,Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aakhm0433P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Mr. V.Vinod Kumar, DRs

Section 143(3)Section 263

…B, 234C and 234D is being charged, as applicable. Demand notice along with challan is being issued.” 6.3 The revisional power of the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act is of wide amplitude. In CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works, (1998) 231 ITR 53, 63 (SC), it is held that “in view of the clear words used in clause (b) of the Explanation to section 263(1) it has to be held that while calling for an examining the record of any proceeding u/s 263(1), it is and it was open to the Commissioner not only to consider the record of that proceeding which was available to the officer at the time of p…

M/S. Topgrain Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 M/S Top Grain V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, 7Th Management Pvt Ltd., Beriwala Building, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Floor, 1/1 Meridith Street, Bhawan,P-7, Kolkata-700 072 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaact 9889 K] Kolkat-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32

…passed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers have been given to the Commissioner and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998], 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, normally when Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry on a particular issue, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the impugned assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as Assessin…

M/S. Aic Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1332/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Aic Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pcit-1, Kolkata 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn0217F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Respondent By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Kolkata Dated 12.03.2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Relevant Facts Involved In The Instant Lis Are In A Very Narrow Compass. The Assessing Officer Has Framed His Regular Assessment In Issue Dated 19.12.16 Disallowing Administrative Expenditure Of Rs.46,420/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) R.W. Section 14A Of The Act. The Pcit Assumed His Revision Jurisdiction Terming The Above Regular Assessment As Erroneous Causing Prejudice To Interest Of The Revenue Since There Were ‘Large Specific Domestic Transactions” & The Assessing Officer Had Completed His Assessment Without Making Any Reference To The Tpo To Determine Arm’S Length Price Thereof. He Quotes Cbdt Instruction No.3/2016 Dated 10.03.16 Regarding Guidelines For Implementation Of Transfer Pricing

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT

Section 14ASection 263Section 40

…t passed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers have been given to the Commissioner and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, normally when Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry on a particular issue, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the impugned assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as Assessin…

Smt. Dipti Gupta, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 511/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Deepti Gupta Pr. Cit-2 91, New Agrawal Nagar Indore बनाम/ Sapna Sangeeta Road Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aitpb9751B

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ludes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing & Products Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 / 98 Taxman 1 (SC). Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. 18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC), had observe…

M/S. General Polytex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2211/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 M/S General Polytex Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ward-1(1), Aayakar International Commerce Bhawan, P-7, Centre (Icc), Near Chowringhee Kadiwala School, Ring Square,Kolkata-69 Road, Surat-395002 [Pan No.Ssvvb 5335 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Radehy Shyam, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-09-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22-11-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed In Case M.No.Pr.Cit-1/Kol/Revision U/S263/2017- 18/14797-14800, Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Registry Has Already Issued Rpad Notice Dated 20.08.2019 For Today’S (09.09.2019) Hearing. We Therefore Proceed Ex Parte Against The Assessee To Decide The Instant Appeal On Merits. 2. Case File Suggests That The Assessing Officer Had Framed Assessment / Re-Assessment In Assessee’S Case In Issue Dated 28.01.2016 Invoking Sec.

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 263

…passed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers have been given to the Commissioner and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, normally when Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry on a particular issue, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the impugned assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as Assessin…

Radiant Hues Crm Solutions Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3846/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Shivam, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ld. that the commissioner was justified in treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 20. Another decision relied upon by the ld.. DR which is in the case of Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works 231 ITR 53, would., in fact, do good to the assessee because in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held. that the word “record” used in Sec. 263 (1) of the Act would. mean the record as it stands at the time of examination by the Commissioner, but not as it stands at the time the order was passed by the Assessing Officer. 21. Records which were examined…

Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council, New Delhi vs. DCIT(E), Circle- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3846/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Shivam, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3284/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

…rated in the paras above Therefore, errors have crept into the order as pointed out in the notice u/s 263 which have caused prejudice to the interests of revenue. In the case of CIT vs. Shree Manjuathesware Trading Products and Comphor Works, report in (1988) 231 ITR 53, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the revisionary power conferred on the Commissioner of Income Tax is of wide amplitude. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 232 has held that the Commissioner may consider an order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if there is some apparent er…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3281/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

Virandra Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. CIT, International Texation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2055/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sulekha Verma, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ustrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 3. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) 4. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) 5. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 dated May 11, 2016 (SC) 7. PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, ITA No.2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018 (Tribunal) 8. CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Kar.) 9. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del.) 10. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.3046/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3283/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3282/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

Vedanta Ltd (Earlier Known As Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1454/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivedanta Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Circle-26(1), Industries (India) Ltd,) New Delhi Core-6, 3Rd Floor, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs7101B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 263Section 271

…ers u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 have been conferred on the CIT/PC1T in the Statute. Furthermore, such powers were held to he of wide amplitude by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Shree Manjunathcswarc Packing Products & Camphut Works (1998) 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman I. Therefore, normally when an AO has not conducted a proper enquiry on a particular issue leading to a loss of revenue, then such order's has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial lo the interests of revenue Moreover, in terms of the specific language of Explanation 2 to section 263( I) of the I T. Act, 1961 an order passed by th…

Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1519/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Advocate

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

…d as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the Commissioner of Income-tax (see CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC)). Nothing bars/prohibits the Commissioner of Income-tax from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous." 5. In the present case, inquiries were certainly conducted by the Assessing Officer. It is not a case of no inquiry. The order under section 263 itse…

Ashok Kumar Sinha, Ghaziabad vs. Prcit, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3615/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…113 (Allahabad) 9. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Vs JCIT (2018-TIOL-2284-HC-MAD-IT) 10. CIT Vs Amitabh Bachhan (69 taxmann.com 170, 240 Taxman 221, 384 ITR 200, 286 CTR 113) 11. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/(1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) 12. EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. Vs CIT (109 Taxman 151, 242 ITR 659, 159 CTR 137) (SC) 13. CIT Vs Jaykumar B. Patil (236 ITR 469, 156 CTR 476) (SC) 14. Shoreline Hotel (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 98 taxmann.com 234 (Bombay) 15. CIT Vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay) 16. CIT Vs Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com…

M/S Sainath Developers, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 180/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 153ASection 263

…h the CIT can rely includes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT Vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products, 231 ITR 53 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. 18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), had observed that the phrase ‘prejudi…

M/S Sainath Developers, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 179/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 153ASection 263