How many judgments cite Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT (161 ITD 627), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 50C, Section 1961, Section 147, Section 43CA, Section 143(3), Section 250.

Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT

161 ITD 627Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#2437 most cited

What is Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT authority for?

Dharmashibhai Sonani holds that if a statutory proviso is declaratory and curative, intended to remedy unintended consequences of a main provision, it should be given retrospective effect. This principle applies when determining the effective date of such provisos, including the third proviso to Section 50C(1).

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT · Section 50C · Section 50C(1) third proviso · retrospective effect · declaratory proviso · curative proviso · unintended consequences · stamp duty value · full value of consideration · capital gains · ITAT Ahmedabad

Also reported as

209 TTJ 850

Sections most often in play

Section 50C Section 1961 Section 147 Section 43CA Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 148 Section 2(47)

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 50c(1)safe harbour section 50c(2)section 23(5)section 43c section 43ca waiver of loan full value of consideration circle rate section 211 stamp duty value

Judgments citing Dharmashibhai Sonani v. ACIT

DARSHINI AMIT SHARMA,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, DAMAN, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1345/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 50(1)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

…and its conclusion that the said proviso is declaratory and\ncurative and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, merits acceptance\". The\nsame was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of\nDharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been\napproved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs\nVummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must\ntake a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the\nthird proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for\nunintend…

CHANDRA LALIT SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7535/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Income Tax Officer, 25-26, 6Th Floor, Ward-19(1)(1), Western Court Building, Vs. Piramal Chamber, 83, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400012. Marine Drive, Mumbai-400002. Pan : Acips3131J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Vajani For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 5O

…Act and its conclusion that the said proviso is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, merits acceptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)). The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended co…

AMIT GIRDHARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 811/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year. 2012-13 Amit Girdharbhai Patel The ACIT D-9, Navdeep Society, Circle-1(1)(1), Behind Gokuldham Vs Vadodara Society, Manjalpur-GIDC Road, Manjalpur, Vadodara, (Respondent) Gujarat-390011 PAN: ACQPP7377M (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmer, ARs. Revenue Represented: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 18-06-2025 Date of pronouncement : 14-08-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAPID ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3522/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Dy. C.I.T Vs. Rapid Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd Circle – 19(1) 111-112, Dsidc Sheds Delhi Okhla Phase – 1, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 50(1)Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

…Act and its conclusion that the said proviso is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, merits acceptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended co…

SHAMOON AHMED MULLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(4), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6069/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Niyati Hakani, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

…the 6 Shri Shamoon Ahmed Mulla said proviso is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, merits acceptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended co…

ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2151/MUM/2024[2015 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal Shah

Section 147

…s the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran Madras H…

VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2060/MUM/2024[A.Y 2015-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal Shah

Section 147

AAESHKA RIDDHI REALTY,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC - ITO-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3970/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43CSection 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no. 3970/Mum./2024 (Assessment Year :2016–2017) Aaeshka Riddhi Realty 18, Kailash Darshan, 5th Floor, Nana Chowk, Near Kennedy Bridge, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400007. PAN-AAWFA9467B ……………. Appellant v/s CIT(A) – NFAC – ITO - 19(1)(1) Piramal Chamber, DR SS Rao Marg, Parel, ……………. Respondent Mumbai – 400012. Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by :Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing – 17/09/2024 Date of Order – 20/09/2024 O R D E R PER SAND…

SHRI RAJDEEP SINGH CHIMNI,CHANDIGARH vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(15)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…at the said proviso is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, merits acceptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharamashibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627 which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran [2020] 120 taxmann.com 171/429 ITR 97]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for uninten…

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 50C

…made effective from the 1st day of April, 2017 and shall accordingly apply to assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent years.” 35. Is the proviso inserted by Finance Act, 2016 retrospective? Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Dharamshibhai Somani v. ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd. – Trib.)(SMC)] (ITA No. 1237/Ahd/2013; AY 2008-09; order dated 30.9.2016)(Ahd Trib SMC) was dealing with the case of an assessee who had entered into an agreement to sell certain agricultural land on 29th June, 2005 for Page 16 of 33 a consideration of Rs. 45 lakh. The final sale deed was executed on 24th April, 2007. The delay in registra…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. MEELENDRA DEEPENDRA SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.4430/Mum/2023 is dismissed

ITA 4430/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer Room No.116, 1St Floor, Meelendra Deependra Singh, G-Block, 503, Pushpakunj, A Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Churchgate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bfaps5402N Assessee By : Shri H.N. Motiwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Meshram, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Motiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…he assessee's appeal vide order dated 25-7- 2019, took note of the submissions made by the assessee wherein they placed reliance on the decision of the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627, order of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Income tax Officer v. Modipon Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 360/154 ITD 369. 13. On a reading of the order passed by the CIT(A), it is interesting to note the report submitted by the Income-tax Simplification Committee set up in 2015, headed by a Former Judge of the High Court, Delhi. 14. Mr. T. R…

DEEPENDRA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1) MUMBAI, BANDRA EAST

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

ITA 2690/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledeependra Singh, Vs. Ito Ward-17(2)(1), 504 Pushpa Kunj, Kautaliya Bhavan, A Road,Marine Lines, Bandra East, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400050. Pan/Gir No. : Akips3319N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Motiwalla.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougle. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…e in nature and inserted to remove difficulties and should be treated as applying retrospectively and not prospectively as per the principle laid in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306 (SC)]. (iii) The Ahmedabad Tribunal in Dharmshibhai Sonani Vs, ACIT [161 ITD 627] has also held and decided that the said provisos should be considered retrospectively and not prospectively as under: “Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Capital gains - Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases (Computation of capital gain) - Assessment year 2008-09 Whether insertion of proviso to section 50C by th…

RAJPAL MEHRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17 (1), MUMBAI

ITA 2817/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suni Mathews (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50C

…observations have been noted with approval by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt Ltd. (2015) 61 taxmann.com 45 (Del). The Bench has also referred to yet another decision of this Tribunal in Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs. ACIT (2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd), which has been approved by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Vummudi Amarendran 92020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad). We have no reason to take a different view and we respectfully concur with the view expressed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal as aforesaid. 7 Rajpal Mehra (HUF) 15. In that view of the matter the appellant-assessee wo…

SHRI RAJESH SRICHAND UTTAMANI ,NAGPUR vs. A.CIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 91/NAG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Kaumudi Patil, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…ree statutory proviso(s) in sec.50C(1) of the Act inserted in Finance Act, 2016 onwards covers the assessee’s case as we are in assessment year 2013- 2014 only. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments in light of Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT [2016] 161 ITD 627 (Ahd.) and Maria Fernandez Cheryl vs. ITO (International Taxation) [2021] 187 ITD 738 (Mum.–Tribu.) holding that the legislature has inserted [1st and 2nd proviso(s) and [3rd proviso] respectively; to sec.50C(1) as curative measures which carry retrospective effect. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance chal…

SHRI PRAKASH SADASHIV SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 349/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…y sec.50C(1) first and second proviso(es), inserted by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 on the ground that the same do not carry retrospective effect, the fact remains that this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT [2016] 161 ITD 627 (Ahd.) has already decided the issue against the department by holding that this statutory amendment is curative in nature inserted for removing hardships to the taxpayers and, therefore, it carries retrospective effect. The fact also remains that there is no concrete finding either in re-assessment or in the NFAC's order as to whether the assess…

AXIA INFOSERVE LLP,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

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

ITA 3142/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaxia Infoserve Llp V. Additional/Joint/Dy/Acit 16Th Floor, Tower 2A National E-Assessment Centre One Indiabulls Centre Delhi Senapati Bapat Road, Elphinstone Road Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Abifa7158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Minal Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…Act and its conclusion that the said proviso is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005, merits acceptance". The same was the path followed by another bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd)] which has been approved by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment reported as CIT Vs Vummudi Amarendran [(2020) 429 ITR 97 (Mad)]. The question that we must take a call on, therefore, is as to what is the rationale behind the insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1), and if that rationale is to provide a remedy for unintended co…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1, RAIPUR vs. M/S. MAHAVIR INFRACON PVT. LTD., RAJNANDGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 92/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parasmal Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 29Section 43C

…. statue book i.e from AY 2014-15. In the case of appellant the difference varies between 5% to 7%. The appellant in support has placed reliance on following case laws:- (a) Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) 2(3)(1) (2021) 209 TTJ 850 (b) Sandeep Patil Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.924/Bang/2019 (c) Kishore Hira Bhandari Vs. Income Tax Officer in 177 ITD 565 (d) CIT Vs. Calcutta Export Company reported in 404 ITR 654 (e) C.B Gautam Vs. Union of India and Others in 199 ITR 530 (f) Rahul Constructions Vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 38 DTR (Pune) (Trib) 19 (g) Smt. Sita Bai Khetan Vs. In…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,, NASHIK vs. NARESH J. KARDA,, NASHIK

ITA 800/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar &

Section 143(3)

…the legislature has introduced similar amendments prescribing tolerance/margins @ 5% revised to 10% in Sec.50C third proviso vide very Finance Acts which have been held as curative in nature having retrospective effect in Dharmashibhai Sonani vs. ACIT [2016] 161 ITD 627 (Ahd.) and Smt. Maria Fernandez Cherly vs. ITO [2021] 209 TTJ 850 (Mum.). 25 ITA.Nos.814 to 817/PUN./2019, ITA.Nos.798 to 800/PUN./2019, ITA.No.813/PUN./2019 & ITA.No.796/PUN./2019 Shri Naresh Jagumal Karda, Nashik, & M/s. Karda Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. 10.2. Learned DR could hardly dispute that the legislature has introduced similar ben…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,, NASHIK vs. NARESH J. KARDA,, NASHIK

ITA 799/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar &

Section 143(3)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,, NASHIK vs. NARESH J. KARDA,, NASHIK

ITA 798/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar &

Section 143(3)

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3