Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO

174 ITR 714High Court1988#3918 most cited

What is Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Where a notice issued under section 148, after obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, is challenged, the only document to be examined for determining its validity is the report on the basis of which the Commissioner's sanction was obtained. The Income-tax Department cannot rely on any other material.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Equitable Investment Co. v. ITO · section 148 · section 148(2) · validity of notice · reasons recorded · sanction of CIT · report for sanction · IT department reliance on other material

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 151Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

books or books of accountsection 2(12a)section 2(40)section 92esection 148(2)approval under section 151dumb documentssurvey under section 133aborrowed satisfactionfirst proviso to section 147income escaping assessmentshare application money

Judgments citing Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

ITA 1618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

…relevant time. Only the reasons so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued under s. 148. In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITA Nos.1617 and 1618/Bang/2024 Page 29 of 45 ITO (1988) 73 CTR (Cal) 236 : (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the CIT is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction of the CIT has been obtained. The IT Departm…

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

…y virtue of the provisions of s. 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reasons so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued under s. 148. In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 73 CTR (Cal) 236 : (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued under s.148 of the IT Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the CIT is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 28 of 29 validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction…

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1615/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

…y virtue of the provisions of s. 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reasons so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued under s. 148. In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 73 CTR (Cal) 236 : (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued under s.148 of the IT Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the CIT is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 28 of 29 validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction…

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1614/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

…y virtue of the provisions of s. 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reasons so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued under s. 148. In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 73 CTR (Cal) 236 : (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued under s.148 of the IT Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the CIT is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 28 of 29 validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction…

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1658/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

…y virtue of the provisions of s. 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reasons so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued under s. 148. In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 73 CTR (Cal) 236 : (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the CIT is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction of the CIT has been obtained. The IT Departm…

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1575/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 37Section 68

…y virtue of the provisions of s. 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reasons so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued under s. 148. In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 73 CTR (Cal) 236 : (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the CIT is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction of the CIT has been obtained. The IT Departm…

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1573/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 37Section 68

…y virtue of the provisions of s. 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reasons so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued under s. 148. In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 73 CTR (Cal) 236 : (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the CIT is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction of the CIT has been obtained. The IT Departm…

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1570/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 37Section 68

…y virtue of the provisions of s. 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reasons so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued under s. 148. In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 73 CTR (Cal) 236 : (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the CIT is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction of the CIT has been obtained. The IT Departm…

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1568/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 37Section 68

…y virtue of the provisions of s. 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reasons so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued under s. 148. In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 73 CTR (Cal) 236 : (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the CIT is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction of the CIT has been obtained. The IT Departm…

RAKESH MULCHAND KOTHARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-26(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 6598/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
Section 131Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…ction 148 by virtue of\nthe provisions of section 148(2) at the relevant time.\nOnly the reasons so recorded can be looked at for\nsustaining or setting aside a notice issued under section\n148. In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P.)\nLtd. v. ITO [1988] 174 ITR 714, a Division Bench of the\nCalcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued\nunder section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after\nobtaining the sanction of the Commissioner of Income-\ntax is challenged, the only document to be looked into\nfor determining the validity of the notice is the report on\nthe basis of which the sanction of the…

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…der section 148 by virtue of the provisions of section 148(2) at the relevant time. Only the reason so recorded can be looked at for sustaining or setting aside a notice issued under section 148. In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1988] 174 ITR 714, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction of the Commiss…

ACIT, CENTRAL CRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SHIMMER DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1497/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150Section 68

…h are to be looked into to justify the reopening ofproceedings U/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. Reliance in this regard is being placed, among others, on the following judgments: (amna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461 (All), Equitable Investment Co. P. Ltd. Vs. ITO 174 ITR 714 (Cal), Baldev Singh Giane Vs. CIT 248 ITR 266 (P&H), Sheo Narain Jaiswal & Others Vs. ITO 176 ITR 352 (369), CIT Vs. Aggarwalla Brothers 189 ITR 786 (Pat), Girdhar Gopal Gulati Vs. UOI 182 Taxation 616 (All), Banswara Syntex Ltd. Vs. ACIT 182 Taxation 584 (Raj). In case the reasons recorded are cryptic the reassessment order passed in pursuance t…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…following decisions: a) Hindusthan Lever Ltd.Vs ACIT 268 ITR 332 (Bom) b) Inspecting Assistant Commissioner &Anr. Vs. I.B.M World Trade Corporation (216) ITR 0811- Bom(at page 823) c) Equitable Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 73 CTR (Cal) 236: (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal) d) Gauri Shankar Chaudhury vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. 234 ITR 0865- Pat e) H. Noronaha vs. ITO, Circle-3, Bangalore (133 ITR 0199-Kar) The ld counsel for the assessee finally prayed that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) is a reasoned and speaking one which has been passed after taking into account all the 23 I.T.A. No.2…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…following decisions: a) Hindusthan Lever Ltd.Vs ACIT 268 ITR 332 (Bom) b) Inspecting Assistant Commissioner &Anr. Vs. I.B.M World Trade Corporation (216) ITR 0811- Bom(at page 823) c) Equitable Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 73 CTR (Cal) 236: (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal) d) Gauri Shankar Chaudhury vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. 234 ITR 0865- Pat e) H. Noronaha vs. ITO, Circle-3, Bangalore (133 ITR 0199-Kar) The ld counsel for the assessee finally prayed that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) is a reasoned and speaking one which has been passed after taking into account all the 23 I.T.A. No.2…

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…e principle of law – (i) Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Ct. Muthiah v. CIT AIR 1956 SC 269 (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Daulat Ram Rawatmul [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), (iii) Equitable Investment Co. [P.] Ltd. vs ITO G- Ward And Others 174 ITR 714 (Cal) (iv) Hindustan Lever Limited V. R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 268 ITR 332 (Bom) (v) Birla VXL Ltd Vs ACIT [1995] 217 ITR 1 (Guj) (vi) CIT Vs. N. Thippashetty [2010] 322 ITR 525 (Kar) (vii) Assam Co. Ltd v. UOI 150 Taxman 571 (Gau) (viii) Commissioner of Income-tax-V v. Orient Craft Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 392 (DELHI)…

M/S NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

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

ITA 553/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…erence to any extraneous materials. The reason recorded must either stand or fall on the reasons as recorded alone and nothing else. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Jamanalal Kabra reported in 69 ITR 461 (All.), Equitable investment Vs. CIT reported in 174 ITR 714 (Cal) and N.D. Bhat VS. IBM reported in 216 ITR 811 (Bom). In the case of Hindustan Lever Limited V.R.B. Wadkar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 268 ITR 332, the Bombay High Court in its decision at page 338 it has been held that: “It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing O…

M/S.NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , , MANGALORE

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

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…erence to any extraneous materials. The reason recorded must either stand or fall on the reasons as recorded alone and nothing else. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Jamanalal Kabra reported in 69 ITR 461 (All.), Equitable investment Vs. CIT reported in 174 ITR 714 (Cal) and N.D. Bhat VS. IBM reported in 216 ITR 811 (Bom). In the case of Hindustan Lever Limited V.R.B. Wadkar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 268 ITR 332, the Bombay High Court in its decision at page 338 it has been held that: “It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing O…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.1761/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 ITA No.1762/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 ITA No.1763/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 ITA No.1764/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 ITA No.1765/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.1766/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu The Income Tax Officer Kalamma Trust, K.G.Koppal Vs. Ward 1(4) New Kantharaj Urs Road Mysuru. Mysuru – 570 023 PAN : AABTB9845M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respond…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.1761/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 ITA No.1762/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 ITA No.1763/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 ITA No.1764/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 ITA No.1765/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.1766/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu The Income Tax Officer Kalamma Trust, K.G.Koppal Vs. Ward 1(4) New Kantharaj Urs Road Mysuru. Mysuru – 570 023 PAN : AABTB9845M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respond…

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1762/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM ITA No.1761/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 ITA No.1762/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 ITA No.1763/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 ITA No.1764/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 ITA No.1765/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.1766/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu The Income Tax Officer Kalamma Trust, K.G.Koppal Vs. Ward 1(4) New Kantharaj Urs Road Mysuru. Mysuru – 570 023 PAN : AABTB9845M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respond…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2