How many judgments cite CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.?

223 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (222 ITR 344), spanning 2002 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 41(1), Section 14A, Section 28(iv), Section 143(3), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 115JB.

CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.

222 ITR 344Supreme Court of India1996#398 most cited

What is CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. authority for?

Unclaimed deposits received in the course of trading transactions and sundry credit balances written back are taxable as business income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they constitute a cessation of trading liability.

223

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. · 222 ITR 344 · Section 41(1) · unclaimed trading deposits · sundry credit balances written back · cessation of trading liability · taxability of income · waiver of loan applicability · business income

Sections most often in play

Section 41(1)Section 14A Section 28(iv)Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 115JB Section 133A Section 142(2A)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(19aa)waiver of loan section 28(iv)section 43(b)section 43(6)resulting company section 41(1)section 43(1)section 41 demerger section 32(1)(ii)written down value

Judgments citing CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.

Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

ITA 2236/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT,DR

Section 14Section 14A

…e amount as its income, but latter reduced it from its computation of income. It has been the augment on behalf of the assessee bank that these facts are covered by the case decided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., 222 ITR 344. 16. Ld. CIT(A) on a consideration of the matter, found that on similar facts in the assessment year 2005-06, his predecessor, vide order dated 8/3/2007, discussed the issue at length and reached the conclusion that it cannot be said that the amount in the case of the assessee cannot be treated as income at a particular point of time, merely beca…

M/S. Mangat Rice & General Mills, Shahkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Nakodar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the terms aforesaid

ITA 474/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.474/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mangat Rice & General Vs. Ito, Nakodar. Mills, Shahkot. Pan: Aabfm 5282B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Gaurav Dhall, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 23.05.2017, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08 Vide Order Dated 14.12.2009. 2. The Principal Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Maintainability In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of An Addition For Rs.4.39 Lacs Sustained By The First Appellate Authority. The Background Facts Are That The Assessee, A Partnership Firm In The Business Of Rice Milling, Filed Its’ Return Of Income For The Year On 18.03.2008 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. It’S Trade Debtors & Trade Creditors, Reflected At Rs.9.42 Lacs & Rs.32.18 Lacs Respectively As At The Year-End, I.E., 31.03.2007, Per Its Final Accounts, Were Sought To Be Verified By The 2 Mangat Rice & General Mills V. Ito Assessing Officer (Ao) By Calling Information There-From U/S.133(6) Of The Act. The Dispute Under Reference Pertains To Two Creditors, As Under: (A) Jai Ram Jagdish Chandra, Mehatpur (Jrjc) : Rs.6,03,837.83 (B) Sohan Singh Satpal, Mehatpur (Sss) : Rs.8,38,871.58

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Dhall, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Das, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 131oSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 150(1)

…g from and in the course of business, i.e., on first principles, so as to regarded as business income, even if it were not to be codified u/s.41(1) reproduced supra (refer: CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons 7 Mangat Rice & General Mills v. ITO Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC)) Even if, therefore, agreeing with the assessee, that it did not pay the creditors, who were therefore paid by someone else, whoever it might be, the assessee stands to gain to that extent qua a trade liability arising in the course of its’ business. Rather, it is only as the same is not paid by the assessee that it benefits from the cessati…

ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Gold Chick Hatcheries and Food Ltd, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 668/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Gold Chick Hatcheries & Ward – 2(2), Hyderabad Foods Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcg4056E Appellant Respondent Revenue By: Smt. Alka Rajavanshi Jain Assessee By: Shri Ramesh Babu Kilaru Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: /11/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Babu KilaruFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajavanshi Jain

Section 115JSection 28Section 3(1)Section 4Section 41

…. The revenue is in appeal before us. Ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the above decision, the Hon’ble Court has distinguished the cases of a) T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons, 222 ITR 344 b) Iskrameco Regent Ltd. (supra) c) Rollatainers Ltd., 339 ITR 54 d) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 261 ITR 501 12.1 The above decision is distinguishable on facts as the present case involves scheme of revival under BIFR. The one time settlement offered to the assessee based on the scheme against the erosion of capital. The compensation received by t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Manipal Finance Corporation

ITA/150/2010HC Karnataka20 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 260Section 28Section 41

…iability does not constitute income contrary to Section 28(iv) read with Section 41 of the Act and the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Vilas Bank reported in 220 ITR 305 and in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Son Ltd. reported in 222 ITR 344? 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the matter could be disposed of on a short issue. He submits that the Tribunal followed the earlier orders in the case of the assessee as noted by it in paragraph No.6 of its order. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue had filed I.T.A. Nos.794 and 795 of 2008. By the order dat…

Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. Dr. K. Kalpana Reddy

ITTA/419/2012HC Telangana24 Aug 2018

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Khandwala Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3100/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3100/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri V. M. Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36

…me of the order in remission or such waiver amounts to profits or gains of business or profession is liable to be taxed under 14 I.T.A. No. 3100/Mum/2011 Khandwala Securities Ltd. section 28 of the Act. In the case of CIT v TV SundaramIyengar Saris Ltd (1996) 222 ITR 344 (SC), the Honourable Supreme Court laid clown that the waiver of loan, on the subsequent event has the effect of changing the nature and character of loan, the capital receipt converts into trading receipts and therefore unclaimed deposits become assessees income during the course of trading transaction and therefore held to be taxable is also eq…

Spl Polymers Ltd Now A Division of Supreme Petrochem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir VI(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6308/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 41(1)

…he balance amount of Rs.7,00,66,000 was waived by M/s. Doshin Hongkong Ltd. The amount waived by M/s. Doshin Hongkong Ltd. is assessable to income tax income. The ratio of the supreme court judgement in the case of CIT vs. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar & Songs Ltd. (222 ITR 344) applies to the case. The assessee did not admit the amount waived of Rs.7,00,66,000/- as income for income tax purpose when it filed the return of income. hence, i have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The income which has escaped assessment is Rs.7,00,66,000/- Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 was issued o…

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meher Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4431/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4431/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish KumarFor Respondent: Shri M. M. Joshi, AR

Section 143(3)Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SH. G. S. PANNU, AM & HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4431/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Meher Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. ITO- 1 (2) (3), बिधम/ 412-A, Lotus House, 32A, 527, Aayakar Bhavan, M. New Marine Lines, K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AACCM1573H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Ashish Kumar, DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri M. M. Joshi, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 23.05.18 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 27/07…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Vrindavan Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 235/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 28Section 80

…deduction from the taxable income in the earlier years and would not come within the purview of Section 41(1) of the Act. However, this Court by placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of CIT v. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. 222 ITR 344 held that the loan was received by the assessee for carrying on its business and therefore, not a loan taken for the purchase of capital assets. Consequently, the decision of this Court in the matter of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (supra) was distinguished as in the said case the loan was taken for the purchase of capital assets and not for tra…

Flo Dyne Controls (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 983/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Flo Dyne Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 10(3)(1) C/O. Jayesh Sangharjka & Co Llp Charted {Now Known As Income Tax Accountants Officer 15(1)(2)} Unit No. 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, D.S. Phalke Road, Dadar (E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 014

For Appellant: Shri Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 40Section 41(1)

…itted the confirmation from the creditor, genuineness of the transactions is not proved and the case law relied upon are distinguishable. Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. [222 ITR 344] and concluded that there is a cessation of liability and accordingly he made the addition. 4. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Natural Gas Company Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [61 taxmann.com 297] rejected the claim of the assessee. 5. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted t…

Toucan Food & Snacks P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 8(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 28

…egard, the Assessing Officer took support from the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. Vs. DCIT (308 ITR 417) and also decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (222 ITR 344). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed ` 698.40 lakhs as income of the assessee u/s. 28(iv) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal. 4. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee could not redeem/convert debentures into share capital as the subscriber of debentures, M/s S.M Finan…

ITO, Ward-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Tini Pharma Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 669/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Tini Pharma Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 2(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaact 7976K

For Appellant: Shri PVSS PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 41Section 41(1)

…ction from the taxable income in the earlier years and would not come within the purview of Section 41 (1) of the Act. However, this Court by placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of CIT v. T. V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 344 / 88 Taxman 429 held that the loan was received by the assessee for carrying on its business and therefore, not a loan taken for the purchase of capital assets. Consequently, the decision of this Court in the matter of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) was distinguished as in the said case the loan was taken for the purchase of capital assets and…

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Suresh Henry Thomas, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4457/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…ssessee in earlier years. Learned DR, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. (308 ITR 407) and decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (222 ITR 344), submitted that loan so taken by the assessee would acquire character of trading receipt, if it has been utilized for working capital purposes. 5. The Ld A.R, on the contrary, submitted that the unsecured loans were not used for working capital purposes. However, when it was pointed out to learned AR that the manner of utilization of unsecured…

Madras Security Printers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.203/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Madras Security Printers Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 72, Old No. 781, Th Road, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai – 81. Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aagcm0599K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar

…A. No.203/M/17 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By relying on the grounds appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) went in wrong to rely the decision in the case of TVS & Sons Ltd. in 222 ITR 344 (SC) in conforming the addition. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer has not made any extensive enquiry with regard to the trade advance with ILFS and simply presumed that it is income of the assessee. Further, it was the submission that the authorities below failed to note that the advance was utilized for procuring raw materials an…

M/S. Airline Allied Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2477/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sahu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…obtained in the course of business. Thus, he added the sum under both the provision, i.e., sections 28(iv) and 41(1). While coming to this conclusion, he relied upon the following judgments:- (i) CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. Reported in [1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC). (ii) Solid Containers Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2009] 308 ITR 417 (Mumbai). 5 I.T.A. No.2476 & 2477/DEL/2014 7. Before the ld. CIT (Appeals), assessee made very detailed submissions, which have been dealt and incorporated by the ld. CIT (A) from pages 5 to 10 of the appellate order. The sum and substance of the assessee’s contention has…

M/S. Airline Allied Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2476/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sahu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

Shrm Food and Allied Services P.Ltd ( Now Known Rkhs Food and Allied Services P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1116/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 41Section 41(1)

…transaction of obtaining a loan is not a trading transaction and therefore, the same cannot be considered as income exigible to income tax. The rule of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CUT Vs. Ty Sundaram lyengar & Sons Limited (1996) 222 ITR 344 relied upon by assessee also refers to cessation of trading liability. It is useful to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in this regard; "If an amount is received in the course of trading transaction, even though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being of revenue character, the amount charges its character when the amount b…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4822/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Co No.193/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year :2002-03) Ito 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., R.No.552, Aayakar Bhavan Bombay House, Mumbai 24, Homi Modi Street Fort, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaact2727Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 41

…Ltd (308 ITR 417)(Bom.) iii) Ramaniyam Homes (Tax Case (Appeal) No.278 of 2014) reported in 384 ITR 530 6 CO 193/Mum/2012 M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., 14. The Id. DR also relied on the Supreme Court decisions in case of CIT v T. V. Sundaram lyengar and Sons Ltd. (222 ITR 344) and CIT v M/s Karamchand Thapar (222 ITR 112) cited by the AO. 15. On the other hand, contention of learned AR was that in the context of 41(1), it requires to be noted that the amount recovered by the company against the bonds has never been allowed as loss, expenditure or trading liability.' Reliance is placed on the following decisions, which…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 438/JPR/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rolly Agarwal (CIT)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…sessing Officer treated the amount of Rs. 47,33,34,127/- as income of the assessee chargeable to tax. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons 222 ITR 344. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the three important aspect about transfer of reconciled entries in the inter branch accounts. One, the assessee is to maintain complete details, the second; the assessee does not have any right to forfeit the amount. It has to honor any claim in this respect and the third, the amount so transferred cannot be di…

State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 280/JPR/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rolly Agarwal (CIT)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A