Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153A, Section 275(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 269SS, Section 271D, Section 132.

Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (379 ITR 100)

Q: What is Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not a prerequisite for the initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax are valid. The date of the show cause notice by the penalty imposing authority is relevant for computing limitation for imposing penalty under Section 271DA.

Q: How many judgments cite Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (379 ITR 100), spanning 2016 to 2026.

M/S.Karannur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, WD-1(2), Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

…ere caused to be initiated, or30.06.2018. The later of the two dates, i.e., 30/6/2018, would be the limitation date. The penalty order/s dated 26.07.2018 is thus barred by time. The decision by the Hon'ble High Court in Grihalakshmi Visions vs. Addl. CIT[2015]379 ITR 100 (Ker), holding that initiation of penalty could only be by a competent authority and, thus, only upon the issue of notice u/s. 274 of the Act by the Jt. CIT, i.e., on 02.01.2018 (in the instant case), so that the limitation shall expire on 31.7.2018, cannot be regarded as good law in view of the decision in CIT vs. Hissaria Bros.[2016] 386 ITR 71…

The Karannur Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, WD-1(2), Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjith K. Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 273BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 80P(1)

…ere caused to be initiated, or30.06.2018. The later of the two dates, i.e., 30/6/2018, would be the limitation date. The penalty order/s dated 26.07.2018 is thus barred by time. The decision by the Hon'ble High Court in Grihalakshmi Visions vs. Addl. CIT[2015]379 ITR 100 (Ker), holding that initiation of penalty could only be by a competent authority and, thus, only upon the issue of notice u/s. 274 of the Act by the Jt. CIT, i.e., on 02.01.2018 (in the instant case), so that the limitation shall expire on 31.7.2018, cannot be regarded as good law in view of the decision in CIT vs. Hissaria Bros.[2016] 386 ITR 71…

Shri Jaydeepsinh Vajesinh Dodiya, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. C.I.T., Range-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is party allowed

ITA 2429/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R

Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 275(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2012-13 Jaydeepsinh Vajesinh Jt. Comm. of Income Dodiya, At. Post Rampura Tax, Chekhla, Tal. Sanand. Vs Range-7(1), Dist. Ahmedabad-382210 Ahmedabad PAN: AFBPD2368C Himatnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar Revenue by: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 13-04-2022 Date of pronouncement : 31-05-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee again…

ITO - 1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Film Waves Combines P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri P.P. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

…urt who dismissed the appeal of the revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Hissaria Bros. 386 ITR 719. No doubt, at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the DR has strongly placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Grhalakshmi Vision Vs. ACIT (2015) 379 ITR 100 in which it is specifically held that the penalty is liable to be reckoned from the notice issued by ACIT but in the instant case also if the period be reckoned from the initiation of notice by ACIT then the limitation period 5 C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 has also been expired that the said decision is contrary to the decision of the Hissari…

The Mamurpur Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 38, New Delhi

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

ITA 1371/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…e learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.” 17. The learned DR also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Kerela High Court in the case of GRIHLAKSHMI Vision Vs ADDL CIT reported in 379 ITR 100 (Ker), wherein it is held as under: “10. Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated with the passing of the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer or whether such proceedings have commenced with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner. From statutory provision, it is clear that t…

The Mamurpur Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 38, New Delhi

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

ITA 1370/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271ESection 27ISection 80P

…e learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.” 17. The learned DR also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Kerela High Court in the case of GRIHLAKSHMI Vision Vs ADDL CIT reported in 379 ITR 100 (Ker), wherein it is held as under: “10. Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated with the passing of the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer or whether such proceedings have commenced with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner. From statutory provision, it is clear that t…

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennur vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubbali

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1726/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru

Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1724 to 1726/Bang/2018 Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2010-11 M/s. Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co., Vs. The Additional Commissioner APMC Yard, of Income Tax, Ranebennur – 581 115. TDS Range, TAN: BLRS 14875A Hubballi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 29.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President These are a…

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennuru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Hubli

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1725/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru

Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1724 to 1726/Bang/2018 Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2010-11 M/s. Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co., Vs. The Additional Commissioner APMC Yard, of Income Tax, Ranebennur – 581 115. TDS Range, TAN: BLRS 14875A Hubballi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 29.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President These are a…

M/S Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co, Ranebennuru vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax TDS Range, Ranebennuru

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1724/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru

Section 115Section 133ASection 194Section 194BSection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 271C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1724 to 1726/Bang/2018 Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2010-11 M/s. Sha Thanmal Sukharajji & Co., Vs. The Additional Commissioner APMC Yard, of Income Tax, Ranebennur – 581 115. TDS Range, TAN: BLRS 14875A Hubballi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Shri K.R. Narayana, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 29.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President These are a…

Mrs.Tarulata Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6464/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4th Vs. Income Tax (TDS) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. PAN No. AQOPS1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (TDS) 5thFloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mu…

Mrs. Sonal Shah, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6462/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner Of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4Th Vs. Income Tax (Tds) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aqops1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner Of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (Tds) 5Thfloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aadps0777K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Raveevwaglay, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. RaveevWaglay, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Sonal Shah Joint Commissioner of 17/18, Swastik Bldg. 4th Vs. Income Tax (TDS) Floor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400056. PAN No. AQOPS1855M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Tarulata Shah Joint Commissioner of 21/22, Swastik Bldg. Vs. Income Tax (TDS) 5thFloor, N.S. Road, No. 1. Range-3, Mumbai. JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mu…

ITO, Ward-29(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Auto Care, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1484/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1484/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-29(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Auto Care Centre [Pan: Aahfa 8997 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…ce we hold that the ld CITA had rightly deleted the penalty u/s 271E of the Act as barred by limitation. We find that the ld DR vehemently relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision vs Additional CIT reported in 379 ITR 100 (Ker) wherein it was held that the proceedings u/s 271D and 271E of the Act could be validly initiated only by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and hence the time limit for imposing penalty u/s 275(1)(c ) of the Act is to be reckoned from the date on which the JCIT initiated the proceedings and not from the date of assessment order. The opera…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Dr. Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3294/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3294/Mds/2016, 1761/Mds/2017 & 1762/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. Dr.Ganesan’S Hitech The Deputy Commissioner Of Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., Income Tax, No.1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 010. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aadcd7458H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Deepa, CAFor Respondent: 20.09.2017

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी "ी एन "ी "ी एन एन.आर एन आर आर.एस आर एस एस. गणेशन एस गणेशन गणेशन,"याियक गणेशन "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं "ी एवं "ी "ी ए. मोहन "ी मोहन मोहन अलंकामणी मोहन अलंकामणी अलंकामणी,लेखा अलंकामणी लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3294/Mds/2016, 1761/Mds/2017 & 1762/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/s. Dr.Ganesan’s Hitech The Deputy Commissione…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Prashant Sharma, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenues are dismissed

ITA 960/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Vrindera Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 960/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Income Tax Officer, Shri Prashant Sharma, Vs. Ward-4(4), A-34, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFEPS4515D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 961/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Income Tax Officer, Shri Prashant Sharma, Vs. Ward-4…

ITO, Virudhunagar vs. S.Arun Kumar, Rajapalayam

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

ITA 95/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vidya, CA

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, ‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं"ीधु"वु"आर.एलरे"डी,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2009-2010. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Shri. S. Arun Kumar, Ward 1, 243, Madasamy Koil Street, Virudhunagar, Rajapalayam 626 117. [PAN AMEPA 5855B] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCIT. ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. S. Vidya, CA. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/D…